08/02/2017 House of Commons


Live coverage of the day's proceedings in the House of Commons including the remaining stages of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 08/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good morning, welcome to BBC Parliament's live coverage of the


Commons. It half an hour, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn will do battle


over the dispatch box at the latest Prime Minister's Question Time. MPs


will then move onto another day of discussion on the details of the


European Union notification of withdrawal bill, alleges lacing that


authorises ministers to trigger the all-important Article 50 starting


Britain's divorce from the EU, the bill will reach its final stage of


Commons debate this evening called the third reading at around 6pm.


Don't forget to join me for the best of the day in both Houses of


Parliament at 11 tonight, first, questions to the Cabinet Office


Minister, Ben, full of second reading. -- Ben Gummer. Wednesday,


22nd of February, thank you. Although, questions to the Minister


and... INAUDIBLE Neil Parish...


Minor likeness, I beg your pardon! LAUGHTER


The government published its review to the response of electoral fraud,


on the 27th of December, the response clearly sets out the action


that the government intends to take out on each recommendation and


proposes a conference programme for reforming the electoral system and


making democracy more secure. My apologies to the both of you, I'm


not sure who is more offended(!) LAUGHTER


In December, 2008, I was an election observer in Bangladesh, because of


previous voter fraud, they photographed 80 million people, and


it was clearly identifiable when people went to vote map so has the


government considered this, because in a democracy we need as many


people devote as possible but we don't want theft of identity when


people vote? A very good point made around international comparisons,


many countries across the world including Canada, Brazil, Austria,


that already have photographic ID when it comes to pulling stations


including in Northern Ireland, introduced if 2003. The government


is taking forward pilots in looking forward at electoral identification,


this will take place in local government elections of 2018, we


will test various forms of identification, photographic ID,


non-photographic ID, to make sure no one is disenfranchised. The


government talk of voter fraud is a smoke screen for voter suppression.


Macro Barack they are putting obstacles between


people and the voting booth, instead of boosting democracy. If it is such


a problem, can the Minister report family convictions there have been


four voter fraud last year? I'm surprised the honourable gentleman


for somehow claiming this was a smoke screen, it was a Labour


government which introduced photographic ID in Northern Ireland


in 2003, the electoral commission and all other administrators have


called for ID in polling stations, when it comes to looking at IDE, we


will test this vigorously when it comes to pilots and when it comes to


convictions, 481 cases of voter fraud reported to the election


commission and 184 additional cases reported to the police. -- when it


comes to looking at ID. 30% of the population believe there is an issue


with voter fraud when it comes to their local area and it is


perception we are looking to tackle. The number of organisations that the


Minister has just quoted, plus the organisation for Security and


Corporation in Europe warned us that are a voting system is particularly


vulnerable to identity theft. Given that all those countries that the


Minister said, there is no evidence of any voter suppression, do you


think, does the Minister think that those who seek to use these


conspiracy theories are in grave risk of becoming apologists for


electoral fraud? We are determined to ensure that we have a clear and


secure democracy, that voters can have confidence in that system. As a


government we have 46.5 million people on the electoral register,


Turner increasing to 30.8 million in 2015, we are determined to ensure


that we have voter participation but it is right that if there is a


public perception that fraud is an issue, perceptions can be as


damaging as cases of fraud itself. Has the Minister made any equality


impact assessment on recommendations which would ban the use of any


language other than English or Welsh in pulling stations? When it comes


to the package of measures that we reported back on Sir Eric's report,


looking at the issue of language is an important one, it is important


that when comes to electoral administrators doing their job and


being confident that no one is put under it and you pressure when it


comes to voting, that we look at the question of language. When it comes


to government announcements, they will be thorough and analysed


correctly and we will go through due process to make sure impact


assessments are correctly cooperated with. Number two, Mr Speaker. With


your permission, I shall answer this question, and question three and


five together. In response to the review of electoral fraud by my


right honourable friend, we outline the intention to run a number of


pilot schemes, at a number of local authority areas in 2018, the purpose


of this is to test the impact on elections of asking collectors to


present identification. Would my friend agree with me that voting is


one of the most important duties of a citizen, and introducing proof of


ID would bring voting into line with other everyday transactions like


buying a mortgage or renting a car? I agree with my honourable friend,


when it comes to voting there cannot be a important transaction that you


can make over five years the two elected your counsellor or MP, it is


right that that process is respected. -- -- than to elect.


Turning up and claiming your name as your identity, does not happen


anywhere else and it is time to bring democracy up-to-date. Voter


fraud is unacceptable and I welcome any measure to secure democracy.


Swindon borough council has repeatedly been commended for good


election practice, with the Minister consider us for future pilots? I


would like to thank my honourable friend for his question, we have a


great deal of interest from local authorities in the pilot process, at


the moment we are conducting a review to decide exactly what the


form most pilots will take, some will be photographic ID, some will


be non-photographic ID, at the same time we are determined to ensure


that interested local authorities can come forward in due time to


participate. I addressed the Association of electoral


administrators at their annual conference on Friday in Brighton,


and 40% supported introducing ID in polling stations. My honourable


friend is absolutely right, this is common practice in many


sophisticated democracies around the world, what best practice has the


government been taking on those other countries? One double friend


is entirely right, by introducing pilot schemes we will provide


invaluable learning for strengthening the electoral system


but we also want to learn from international comparisons such as


canister, Austria and Brazil which require voter identification. Voters


in Northern Ireland, as stated, have had to present identification since


1985 and photographic since 2003, further information is available on


the report, and we will consider these international comparisons


going forward. Thank you Mr Speaker, the government is deluding itself if


it thinks that impersonation is the main challenge to the integrity of


the democratic system, in fact, a main challenge to its integrity and


credibility is the fact that millions of our fellow citizens who


are entitled to vote do not do so, would the government not be better


to spend time and money on pilot projects designed to increase


participation such as a radical overhaul of how we teach democratic


rights in schools, pursuing online voting, and most of all, automatic


voter registration, so that the ability to vote is not something you


have to apply for. I'm grateful for him to raise that point, we have a


record 46.5 million people now on the electoral register, Turner at


elections is at a record level, what we can and must do more. The idea of


a Clare and -- the idea of a clear democracy is important. INAUDIBLE


I will be setting out the democratic engagement strategy later in the


spring, which will set out further pilots. INAUDIBLE


Will the Minister give the assurance that the issue of postal vote


applications and proxy vote applications which also can be the


subject can be kept under review in terms of identification of the


accurate person who is supposed to be applying for the postal vote? I'm


very grateful for that point being raised, when we publish the response


to Eric Pickles's report, the top line was ID in polling stations but


there are an entire package of measures that include looking again


at postal vote fraud, and banning harvesting of personal votes by


political parties and eliminating the number of postal vote packs that


can be handled by family members down to two. The electoral


commission tells us 3.5 million genuine legitimate electors do not


have valid pieces of photo identification which would be


required in the trials and they risk being denied their votes. The motion


was recently asked opposing the trial in Kendal, Burnley are


considering a similar motion, when will the Minister abandoned his


Republican party's playbook on voter suppression and listen to the


sensible voice of the good folk of Lancashire? The honourable lady


mentions the electoral commission, what she omitted to say was that


they have stated the full and considered response from the


government and the announcement of the intention to pilot measures, the


election commission are in favour of introducing photographic ID when it


comes to elections, what we have said, when it comes to the pilots,


we want evidence -based policy making, that is why we will have


pilots that look at photographic ID, and non-photographic ID, but let me


say, when it comes to ensuring people will be able to vote I will


not be denying anybody that franchise we are protecting


communities that are most vulnerable from actually casting their vote in


a secret ballot. We must protect against and you've implements. I'm


surprised she does not take this seriously. -- we must protect


against undue. INAUDIBLE It is perfectly legal for local


authorities to be able to set their own procurement rules, taking into


account additional factors such as human rights record and


environmental impact? Local authorities must comply with


European Union law, they are enshrined in the public contracts.


Would my right honourable friend Tommy Hamid a people he has in his


departmental staff that run a small businesses and can understand small


businesses when they seek to procure public-sector contracts and against


bureaucracy? My team of two comprises of one person who has run


several small businesses and one who is a sole trader. That is 100%


fulfilment on his request. We also have a small enterprise ambassador


who worked at the council to make sure we are doing exactly as he


wishes. Before he quit a friend of mine empowered Waitrose managers...


I'm not blaming him! Empowered Waitrose managers to go out and


procure local products. Cover not give similar encouragement to bodies


like county and district councils? I commend everything that the


honourable gentleman's and has done. I know he will bring that expertise


in due course to the people of the West Midlands. What I will say is


that although councils and public bodies cannot choose according to


geographical criteria, what they can and must do is take into account the


social value of the procurement policies and that is why there is


latitude for them to have similar approaches to the one that his


friend conducted at Waitrose. Ministers have talked a great deal


about linking apprenticeships to public procurement contracts, a


sensible use of public funds to meet both the schools agenda. The


commission confirmed last week that only 10% of new apprenticeships are


taken from those from low-income families. Given the Cabinet Office's


unique place to promote this agenda, what is the minister doing to tackle


this unacceptable situation? The honourable gentleman raises are just


point. The whole point behind the apprenticeship programme is to give


opportunities to people who would not otherwise have them. That is why


the 3 million target we have is important. The public sector will


contribute a significant proportion. I'm responsible for the civil


service component of that which is successful. We've launched the


standards that will surround some of the civil service apprenticeships


and a hope in time we will fulfil Philby aspiration we both had that


it will help social mobility. The government has identified


photographic and non-photographic identification that will test ID on


all aspects of election, including turnout. I know the electoral


commission on the report in Northern Ireland said that less than 1% of


voters were affected by photo ID. That is why we want to look at both


to make sure there is no disenfranchisement taking place in


our pilot. The Electoral Commission reported in 2016 that 3.5 electors


will have no appropriate form of photo IDs. Why is it that the


government is ignoring recommendations to have a voluntary


voter card which would allow those 2.5 million people to vote? The


honourable gentleman is a fine historian. Like me he believes in


looking at evidence -based policy making, which is why we have


constructed the pilots to make sure there is photographic and


non-photographic identification. If there is anyone who has no form of


identification, we will make provisions for them. When it comes


to the electoral ID card rolling out across the country, it will be


expensive and we have no plans to do so. Workforce planning is primarily


the responsibility of each individual department, but in answer


to her specific question, civil service headcount reduced by 303,090


-- 3390. Will he publish the assessment regarding Brexit and the


work streams that have been cut. We have worked since July to make sure


we have the proper resources in place to make sure our exit from the


European Union is done effectively and efficiently. Departmental plans


will have the kind of outline she is seeking. As my honourable friend


continues to modernise the civil service headcount, will he make sure


that apprenticeships will lead towards a more diverse workforce to


serve our communities? I will assure my honourable friend precisely that.


My predecessor started a programme of understanding better the social


and economic make-up of the civil service and we will make sure that


there is more social equality and diversity in our civil service.


We are seeking to find savings of ?15 billion by 2020. We have


achieved the 3p in the last year. As a councillor I have seen how the


commissioning of services from one provider by different public sector


bodies can drive down costs, providing high-quality services at


lower costs. Are there lessons to be learnt from all sectors of


government and this programme is evidence that the public sector can


deliver more for less. He is right to point out the Cabinet programme,


but many of the lessons we can learn is from local government and others


in terms of sharing services and cutting costs. Will he ensure that


the public services can share data because that will provide


efficiency? There is a bill passing through the house that will do just


that. We are committed to improving public services with


advanced technology. We are doing server using tools such as verified.


I would liken to reassure the house and the government that he is doing


everything he can to make sure that people can access public services


online, particularly for those hard to reach groups, like in my rural


constituencies. By ensuring we have good broadband


connections are my honourable friend's constituency, we will make


sure they can access the information online. The Cabinet Office is the


centre of government. The department is responsible for delivering a


democracy that works for everyone. We are also driving efficiencies to


make government work better. Can the Minister provides an update on any


progress with the PM's order to tackle racial disparities, given so


much is already known about these disparities. Should not then the


government be getting on with doing the great -- a great deal more about


them now rather than waiting for an audit. I find that a surprising


thing from the honourable lady. It was this government and this Prime


Minister that commissioned the racial disparity audit. Her party


when in power have 13 years to do it and did not. I'm proud of what the


Prime Minister has done, we will be publishing the audit within the next


three months and she will be excited by the possibilities of making


things better in this country. Safe tech engineering offers security for


cyber issues. They need to be licensed by another list company of


the MoD. Will businesses be able to access the markets they need? I have


a responsibility for small and medium enterprises and I will take


forward his concern to make sure they are represented. Since 2010 the


has been more than 100,000 civil service jobs gone. The 300 new


recruits for the Brexit department, is the Minister really, really


serious that the UK are properly prepared to enter the most complex


negotiations for generations? The reality is it is an absolute


shambles. I am fully confident and I am fully confident that the civil


service and the marvellous people who... Last week I met with the


Sussex Police to discuss issues including electoral fraud. What


steps are being taken to make sure that the government are involved


with the returning officers. Last Friday I addressed a conference of


the National police chiefs and electoral commission setting out why


things need to be done. There have been cases in the past were


convictions have not been followed through. It is wrong and I hope that


changes in the future. One of the government publish departmental


performance regarding its commitment to deliver ever higher levels of UK


steel content in procurement policy? My honourable friend knows it was


this government that established a far more rigorous understanding of


how still content was in public procurement policy. I will update


him on the progress we are making. I applaud the government's efforts to


give more contracts to small and medium-size enterprises and the use


of technologies such as their websites. How many businesses are


signed up to this website and how can I get more businesses in Wisbech


to sign up? As of yesterday there were 15,007 job and 45 businesses


signed up. -- 15700 and 45. It is easy to sign up and the best he can


do is to tell them to do so. Will the Minister enhance strength in the


Northern Powerhouse to make sure it you'll sure SMEs can take advantage


of public procurement contracts? In the methods I have been describing


today, I shall. Will my right honourable friend accept that when


we are told that it's good to talk, government departments are making it


infinitely more difficult for members to contact private offices


on behalf of their constituents because of the inaccuracies and the


withdrawal of the central register of private office numbers? Can the


Minister tell us when the practice of putting the communal number in


the register will be stopped and the individual numbers of ministers


private offices are stored as it was so began a public communication


between ministers officers and members on behalf of other


constituents? Mr Speaker, I own members an apology for this. If it


is true that some of the telephone numbers in the directory were both


inaccurate and some were general numbers. The revision is being made


quarterly. The next one is in March and I have instructed all


departments to provide private office numbers as members rightly


expect. Order. Questions to be Prime Minister. Mr Toby Perkins.


In addition to my duties I shall have further such meetings today Mr


Speaker, the Government chose to launch the pupil premium at a school


in Chesterfield where 70% of people receive free school meals. The


headteacher, Dave Shaw was running the Great North Run for a cancer


charity. However, her new schools' funding formula means that the


junior school now face the biggest cuts in all of Derbyshire. Running


for cash is now the only alternative to sacking staff. Will she go to the


finish line and tell Dave Shaw how this is a fairer funding formula?


Well, I'm pleased to say that in the local authority that covers the


honourable gentleman's constituency, we have seen an increase of over


17,000 children at good or outstanding schools since 2010.


That's down to Government changes and the hard work of teaches and


other staff in the schools. For a very long time, it has been the


general view - and I have campaigned on this for a long time - that


actually we need to see a fair funding formula for schools. What


Government has brought forward is a consultation on a fairer funding


formula. We look at the results of that fairer funding formula and will


bring forward our firm proposals in due course.


Over the course of the last 12 months, as part of the Defence


Select Committee, I have' had the opportunity to look into the


historic Iraq team and how we as a country deal with more historical


allegations for our servicemen and women, not only for us who serve but


for many members across this House it has been a deeply disturbing


experience. I know the Prime Minister gets it but will she double


her and her Government's commitments to get a grip on this historical


process, so that never again, will our servicemen and women be


exposed... I'm sure the whole House will want to join me in praising the


bravery and commitment of all those who Seb in our Armed Forces. I would


like to thank my honourable friend for the work he is doing on the


Defence Committee because of course he brings personal expertise to that


work. Those who serve on the front line deserve our support when they


get home. I can assure my honourable friend of the Government's


commitment to that. All troops facing allegations receive Legal Aid


from the Government, with the guarantee that this will not be


claimed back. In relation to the issue he has referred to, we are


committed to reducing its case load to a small number of credible cases


as quickly as possible and I recognise the action that has been


taken in relation to the individuals he has referred to, I think it is


absolutely appalling when people try to make a business out of chasing


after our brave troops. Thank you, Mr Speaker.


Mr Speaker, nine out of ten NHS Trusts say their hospitals have been


at unsafe levels of overcrowding. One in six Accident Emergency


units in England are set to be closed or downgraded. Could the


Prime Minister please explain how closing A departments will tackle


overcrowding and ever-growing waiting lists? First of all, can I


extend my thanks and I'm sure that of the whole House to the


hard-working staff in the NHS who do a great job, day-in and day-out,


treating patients. Yes we recognise there are heavy priors on the NHS.


That's -- pressures on the NHS. That's why, this year we are funding


the NHS at 1.3 billion pounds more than the Labour Party promised at


the last election. He refers specifically to Accident


Emergency. What is your response in Accident Emergency? We see 600


more A consultants. 1,500 more A doctors and 2,000 more paramedics.


It's not about standing up and making a sound bite and asking a


question, it is about delivering results and that's what this


Conservative Government is doing. Mr Speaker, congratulating A staff is


one thing, paying them properly is another. I hope she managed to see


the BBC reports on the royal Blackburn A department which


showed that pep had to wait up to 13 hours and 52 minutes to be seen.


Shocking. A major cause of the pressure on A is the 4.6 billion


cut in the social care budget since 2010. Shocking. Earlier this week,


Liverpool's very esteemed adult social care director resigned


saying, "Frankly, I can't see social services surviving after two years".


"That's the maximum." People are suffering and we are really only


seeing the tip of the iceberg. Mr Speaker, what advice does the


Government have to the people of Liverpool in this situation?


SHOUTING THE SPEAKER: Order, order. It is bad


enough that when members who are within the curt ledge of the chamber


shout. Those who are not, absolutely should not do so. It is a


discourtesy to the House of Commons. Nothing more, nothing less. Please


don't do it. The Prime Minister. Well, he refers


at an early stage in his question to Blackburn oo. Imehappy to say


compared to 2010 there are more hospital doctors and more nurses in


the Blackburn East Lang kashire Hospital's NHS Trust. He went on to


talk about waiting times and waiting times can be an issue. Where is it


that you wait a week longer for pneumonia treatment? That you wait a


week longer for heart disease treatment? That you wait seven weeks


longer for cataract treatment? 11 weeks longer for hernia treatment


and 21 weeks longer for a hip operation? It's not in England, it's


in Wales. Who is in power in Wales? Labour. Mr Speaker, my question was


about the comments from the director of social care in Liverpool and why


the people of Liverpool are having to suffer these great cuts.


Liverpool has asked to meet the Government on four occasions. The


crisis is so bad that until yesterday, Mr Speaker, David Hodge,


the Conservative leader of Surrey County Council, planned to hold a


referendum for a 15% increase in council tax. And at the last minute


it was called off. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether or


not a special deal was done for Surrey? The decision as to whether


or not to hold a referendum in Surrey is entirely a matter for the


local authority in Surrey. In Surrey County Council. The right honourable


gentleman has raised the issue of social care, which we've exchanged


on across this Despatch Box before and as I've said before, we do need


to find a long-term sustainable solution for social care in this


country. So I recognise the short-term pressures. That's why we


have enabled local authorities to put more money into social care. We


have provided more money over the next two years, ?900 million more


will be available for social care. But we also need to look at ensuring


that good practice is spread across the whole of the country. We can


look at places like Barnsley, North Tyneside, St Helen's, Rutland,


towards the end of last year, no delayed discharges attributed to


social care in those councils. We need to look long-term and that's


why the Cabinet is driving a review w the relevant department, to find a


sustainable solution, which the Labour Party ducked for far too


long. My question was, whether there had been a special deal done for


Surrey. The #4r50eder said they had many conversations with the


Government. We know they have because I've been leaked copies of


text be send by by the Tory leader intended to somebody called Nick who


works for ministers in the Department for Communities and Local


Government and this text reads "I'm advised that DCLG officials have


been working on a solution and that you will be contacted me to agree a


memorandum of understanding." Ah. Will the Government now publish this


memorandum of understanding and while they are about it, will all


councils be offered the same deal? What we have given all councils is


the opportunity to raise a 3% precept on the council tax for that


go to go into social care. He talks about understanding. What the Labour


Party fails to understand... THE SPEAKER: Order. There is far too


much noise. Mr Pound calm yourself, you are supposed to be a senior


statesman. Order. And Mr Rotherham, you should


reserve your shouting for the stands at Anfield. Prime Minister.


As I say, all councils have the opportunity to raise the 3% precept


to put that funding into the provision of social care. What the


Labour Party fails to understand is that this is not just a question of


looking at money, it is a question of looking at spreading best


practice and finding a sustainable solution. And I have to say to him,


that if we look at social care provision across the entire country,


the last thing social care providers need is another one of Labour's


bouncing cheques. Mrnchts speaker, I wonder if it is


anything to do with the fact that the Chancellor and Health Secretary


both represent Surrey constituencies? Mr Speakerers there


was a second text from Surrey County Council leader to Nick and in the


second text it says "The numbers you indicated are the numbers that I


understand are acceptable for me to accept and call off the R." Now I've


been reading a bit of John Le Carre, and apparently R means, referendum.


It's very subtle, all this. He goes on to say in his text to


Nick "If it is possible for that info to be sent to myself, I can


then revert back soonest. Really want to kill this off." So, how much


did the Government offer Surrey to kill this off? And is the same


sweetheart deal on offer to every council facing the social care


crisis, created by her Government? I've made clear to the right


honourable gentleman what has been made available to every council,


which is the ability to raise the precept. And I have to say to him...


THE SPEAKER: Order. As colleagues know, I never mind how long Prime


Minister's Questions takes. The questions must be heard and the


answers must be heard. The Prime Minister. I have to say to


him, he comes to the despatch broks making all sorts of claims. Yet


again what we get from Labour are alternative facts. -- Despatch Box.


What they really need is an alternative leader.


Mr Speaker, my question was - what deal has been offered to Surrey that


got them to call off a referendum and will the same deal be offered to


every other council going through a social care crisis? Mr Speaker,


hospital wards are overcrowded. 1 million people aren't getting the


care they need. And family members, mostly women, are having to give up


work to care for loved ones. Every day that the Prime Minister fails to


act, this crisis gets worse. So will she, finally, come clean and provide


local authorities with the funding they need to fund social care


properly, so that our often elderly and vulnerable people can be treated


with the support and dignity that they deserve in a civilised society?


The deal that is on offer to all councils is the one I have already


set out. Let me just be very clear with the right honourable gentleman,


because as ever, he stands up and consistently asks for more spending.


More money, more funding. What he always fails to recognise, what he


fails to recognise is that you can only spend money on social care and


on the National Health Service if off strong economy to deliver the


wealth that you need. There is a fundamental difference between us.


When I... THE SPEAKER: Order. I'm sorry there is still too much noise


in the chamber. People observing our proceedings here and on the outside


what the questions heard and the answers heard and they will be.


Prime Minister. There is a difference between us,


when I talk about half a trillion pounds, that's the money we will be


spending on the NHS this Parliament. When Labour talk about half a


trillion pounds, tss the money they want to borrow. Conservatives


investing in the NHS, Labour bankrupting Britain.


Thank you, Mr Speaker, there are significant challenges facing this


great nafgs ours, Prime Minister, one of which is tackling mental


health, particularly for young people. The pressures of juggling


school life, family life and staying safe and feeling valued online are


more difficult than ever, would the Prime Minister agree to meet with me


and my team to discuss the Mental Health Act that we have been working


on and developing, an app to give young people a tool box to help them


in the times of crisis? I am interested to hear of this.


Mental health is an area where we do need to put more of a focus and make


progress. I am pleased to say that something like 1400 more people are


accessing mental health services every day. But more needs to be


done. We are putting ?68 million into improving mental health care


through digital innovation, which sounds as if it fits right into what


my honourable friend is looking at. There will be a particular focus on


that with children and young people's mental health in mind. He


might want to look out for the Department of Health and the


Department for Education joint green paper that they will publish in


October. Angus Robertson. Last night, parliamentarians from across


the chamber and across the parties voted overwhelmingly against the UK


Government's Brexit plans in the Scottish Parliament. If the United


Kingdom is a partnership of equals, will the Prime Minister compromise


like the Scottish Government and reach a negotiated agreement before


invoking Article 50, or will she just carry on regardless? As the


right honourable gentleman knows, when the UK Government negotiates,


it will be negotiating as the government for the whole of the


United Kingdom. We have put in place the JNC arrangements through various


committees which enable us to work closely with the devolved


administrations identify the particular issues that they want to


see represented as we put our views together. We have said we will


intensify the discussions within that arrangement and that is what


we'll do. Angus Robertson. When the Prime Minister was in Edinburgh on


the 15th of July last year, she pledged that she would "Not trigger


article 50 until she had an agreed UK-wide approach. So given that the


Scottish Parliament has voted overwhelmingly against her approach,


and all bar one MP representing a Scottish constituency in this House


of Commons has voted against her approach, she does not have an


agreed UK-wide approach. As the Prime Minister knows, a lot of


people in Scotland watch Prime Minister's Questions. So will she


tell those viewers in Scotland when she intends to keep her word to


Scotland or not? We are ensuring that we are working with the


Scottish Government and the other devolved administrations as we take


this matter forward. I would just remind the right honourable


gentleman of two things. First of all, the Supreme Court was clear


that the Scottish parliament does not have a veto on the triggering of


article 50. The bill that is going through the House is obviously


giving the power to the government to trigger article 50. I would also


remind him of this point, because he constantly refers to the interests


of Scotland inside the European Union. An independent Scotland would


not be in the European Union. Mr Speaker, the people of Rossendale


and Darwen warmly welcome Government's housing White Paper.


Will my right honourable friend confirm that when it comes to


providing more security for renters, building more affordable homes and


helping people buy their own home, it is this party, the Conservative


Party, that is fixing our broken housing market? Am happy to agree


with my honourable friend. Our broken housing market is one of the


greatest barriers to progress in Britain today and the housing White


Paper brought out by my right honourable friend II for communities


and local government sets out the steps we will take to fix it and my


honourable friend is right. It is the Conservatives who are going to


support local authorities to deliver more of the right homes in the right


places to encourage faster build-up of developments. I'm sure everybody


recognised the problem of planning permission that are given and then


not built out, and create the conditions for a more competitive


and diverse housing market. We are setting out the response abilities


of all parties in building the homes that Britain needs. Does the Prime


Minister agree that in a 21st century parliament, the rules should


not able any member to speak for longer than 58 minutes in a


three-hour debate? Does she agree that the rules of the House should


be changed to prevent filibustering and French other members from all


sides of the House get that our share of the time available? I have


to say, I find that a rather curious question from the honourable


gentleman. Last night, as it happens, I was out of the House


between the two votes. I switched on the BBC Parliament channel and I saw


the honourable gentleman speaking. I turned over to something else. I


switched back. I saw the honourable gentleman still speaking! I switched


over to something else. I switched back and the honourable gentleman


was still speaking. He is the last person to complain about


filibustering in this House. Mrs Theresa Villiers. Mr Speaker,...


Order! Mr Hughes, you seem to be in a state of permanent overexcitement.


Calm yourself, man, take some sort of medication and it will soothe


you. We must hear Mrs Williams. As we prepare in this House to take


back control over our laws on agriculture, was she agree to use


Brexit as an opportunity to strengthen, not weaken the rules


which safeguard the welfare of animals? My right honourable friend


raises an important point which is of concern are many people in this


house and outside. We should be proud in the UK that we have some of


the highest animal welfare standards in the world. Indeed, one of the


highest scores for animal protection in the world. Leaving the EU will


not change this. I can assure my right honourable friend that we are


committed to maintaining and where possible, improving standards of


welfare in the UK while ensuring that our industry is not put at a


competitive disadvantage. Last week, the Russian Duma decriminalised


violence against women and children. I trust the government will


encourage Russia to rethink this aggressive approach which could


realise a domestic violence. Does she agree that ratify the Convention


would send a message to Russia and the world of the priority that


should be placed on ending gender-based violence? I am proud


that in this country, we have strengthened the law on domestic


violence and violence against women and girls. We see this as a


retrograde step by the Russian government, repealing existing


legislation sends out absolutely the wrong message on what is a global


problem. We have joined others in both the Council of Europe and the


OSCE in criticising this decision. Each year, the NHS reportedly spends


?80 million more than it needs to on prescriptions for basic painkillers


that can be sourced much more cheaply. Yet at the same time,


secondary breast cancer patients face being denied life extending


drugs. May I ask my right honourable friend to review this poor


allocation of resources and give breast cancer sufferers the hope


that they deserve? This is obviously an important issue that my


honourable friend has raised. I understand that on the point of


basic medication, it is in the fact that the NHS pays more for basic


painkillers than on the high street. In fact, their prices are lower. In


the case of the drug, it is right that difficult decisions are made on


the basis of clinical evidence. I understand that Nice is undertaking


a comprehensive assessment before making a final recommendation and in


the meantime, the drug is still available to patients. Last month, a


report was published on historical institutional abuse in Northern


Ireland. Given the uncertain political institutions in Northern


Ireland, if the executive is not up and running within a month, will the


Prime Minister commit to implementing a report on historical


institutional abuse in full? This was obviously an important review


and of course we have our inquiry into historic child abuse taking


place in England and Wales. I recognise the point the honourable


gentleman makes about looking ahead to the future. We obviously have the


elections on the 2nd of March. There were then be a period of time for an


executive to be put together. I would encourage all parties to work


to ensure that an executive can be put together in Northern Ireland to


maintain the devolved institutions. I don't want to see the benefits


that have come of progress being undone at this stage. I am sure that


looking ahead, whatever is necessary will be done to ensure that the


findings of that report are taken into account and acted on. The Prime


Minister has been clear in her negotiating objectives as we prepare


to leave the European Union. But with the Prime Minister agree with


me that regions like the West Midlands, part of which I represent,


needs a voice in those negotiations to ensure that we take the


opportunities presented by Brexit to raise investment in education,


skills and infrastructure in the region to ensure that her vision of


a global Britain represents the interests of all the regions of


England as well as the broader United Kingdom? I agree with my


honourable friend. When we negotiate as a United Kingdom, we will be


negotiating for the whole of the United Kingdom and taking account of


all parts of the United Kingdom. We have ambition in terms of making the


Midlands and engine for growth. It is about growing the region's


economy and more jobs. That is why money has been put into funding the


Birmingham rail hub, for example. Of course, the West Midlands will be


getting a strong voice nationally with a directed irate elected mayor


in May. I believe Andy Street will be a very good mayor for the West


Midlands. In welcoming the honourable gentleman back again to


the chamber, I call Mr Ronnie Campbell. Looking pretty slim as


well, Mr Speaker! Mr Speaker, I had five months under the health service


in Newcastle, under the auspices of Professor Griffiths, a marvellous


surgeon. He just about saved my life. But there was a flip side.


That is the best side of the national health and it has been


wonderful, the service I got. But there is a flip side, which is what


we are seeing today. We now have dedicated nurses who are called


corridor nurses. They are in the corridor, looking after patients on


trolleys. That is not the way we want our health service to run. Get


your purse open and give them the money they want. As the Speaker


said, I welcome the honourable gentleman to his place again in this


chamber. And I commend the surgeon and all those who have treated him


in the National Health Service that has enabled him to be here today and


to continue his duties. As we know, there are surgeons, doctors, nurses


and other staff up and down the NHS day in and day out, saving lives. We


should commend them for all that they do. The north-east is a good


example of some of the really good practice that we see in the National


Health Service. I want to see that good practice being spread across


the NHS across the whole country. Dr Sarah Wollaston. I am not alone in


hearing from family 's long settled here in Britain who are deeply


worried that they could be separated after we leave the European Union. I


know that the Prime Minister will not want that to happen, and I


wonder if today, she could reassure all our constituents that those who


were born elsewhere in the European Union but settled here in the UK are


married or in partnerships with British citizens, will have the


right to remain? My honourable friend raises an issue that is of


concern to members across this House. As she says, it is of concern


to many individuals outside of this House who will want reassurance


about their future. I want to be able to give that reassurance, but I


do want to see the same reassurance for UK citizens living in the EU.


But when I trigger article 50, I intend to make it clear that I want


this to be a priority for an early stage of the negotiations so that we


can address this issue and reassure the people concerned. Just two weeks


ago, a 15-year-old left school and was stabbed four times and died.


Three days earlier, a 19-year-old was stabbed to death in Wembley. And


just a few months earlier, two of my young constituents were killed and


the police said it was a case of mistaken identity. They were


22-year-old and a 27-year-old. Next week, I am eating the deputy Mayor


of London to discuss this issue and other issues. The Prime Minister


meet with me, fellow MPs and my borough commander to talk about this


issue and the sycamore project which we would like to see rolled out in


London and beyond? Can I express obviously the


condolences of the whole House to the familiar lanes friends to all of


those she referred to in her question who of been so brutally


stabbed and attacked and suffered from knife attacks she refers to.


Obviously this is an important issue. It is a particularly


important issue for London but it is one that we want to see addressed. A


lot of good work that has been done. I'm in the aware of the sycamore


project she has referred to but would be happy to hear more details


of it. From medics at Kingston Hospital to


researchers at Kingston university, and staff at growing electronics


businesses, Kingston's workforce is enriched by highly-skilled workers


from abroad so. Can my honourable friend refirm after we leave the EU


we'll continue to welcome highly-skilled worksers from the EU


and beyond. I thank my honourable friend for his question. We are very


clear that we dop want to bring the numbers of net migration down but we


also want to ensure that the brightest and best are still welcome


here in the United Kingdom. And that's why I think people want to


see the UK Government making decisions about people who are


coming here from the European Union, but we are very clear about the


importance, as I said in my speech in Lancaster House, there will still


be immigration from the European Union into the UK and we want to


ensure that the brightest and best are able to come here.


Yesterday the Brexit minister claimed that Parliament will have a


meaningful vote on the final EU deal. But account Prime Minister


confirm that under her plans Parliament will either have to


accept what the Government offers or fall back on WTO rules? And in the


event there's no deal, there'll be no vote at all? Isn't the reality


this is just take it or leave it and it is not a meaningful concession,


it's a con? We have been very clear. I said in my Lancaster House speech


that there would be a vote on the final deal. There were a number of


questions on what exactly that meant. We will bring forward o


motion on the final agreement for approval by both Houses of


Parliament and before the final agreement is concluded. We do


expect. I know this has been an issue for a number of honourable and


right honourable members. We do expect and intend that will happen


before the European Parliament debate before it votes and debates


on the final agreement. As the Prime Minister knows,


Trafford Schools are the best in the country. But they are also in one of


the F40 worst-funded areas but perversely the draft funding formula


would actually cut funding to are Trafford Schools not increase T when


she reviews the draft proposals l she look, please for a new formula


that guarantees that all of the worst-funded areas are increased in


funding, not cut? My honourable friend raises, again, an important


point that I know is a matter which is on the minds of a number of


honourable and right honourable friends. As I said earlier, I think


the current system of funding is unfair, it is not transparent. I


think it is out of date. I want to see a session at the that does


support our aspiration to ensure that every child has a good school


place. But, in looking at these reforms I can assure my honourable


friend that we want to get this right. It is why we are consulting


and why we will look very closely at the responses to that consultation.


Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Npower have announced a 9.8%


increase on dual fuel bills which even the former boss, the former


tsar has described as shocking. EDS announced a 8.4% electricity hike


and it is reported that British Gas is preparing its 11 million customs


tomorrow Merse for a 9% increase. Ofgem has moved to protect those on


prepayment ministers with a cap on energy bills. I ask the Prime


Minister why doesn't she demand similar protection for the majority


of customs Merse who are being ripped off as the CMA has said to


the sum of ?1.4 billion. The Right Honourable lady might have missed


the fact that where we have said that markets aren't working we will


look at the measures needed and the energy market is one we are looking


at at the moment. In the spirit of neutrality. The Prime Minister's


Lancaster House was a call to put the divisions behind us. Does my


right honourable friend agree that this is a vision that everyone in


the House should support, that the more united we are, the stronger our


negotiating position will be. THE SPEAKER: The honourable gentleman


must be concerned. Does she share my surprise that certain members


opposite that disagreeing with their current party leader, can cause


headaches, that some may not have learned.


Can I say to my honourable friend, he is absolutely right that I think


the country wants us, in this House, and everybody in the country, wants


to unite behind the Government's work to ensure that we get the


best-possible deal for the UK, as we leave the European Union, and I


believe that we can get a deal that actually is going to be in the


interests both of the UK and of the European Union. I had hoped that I


was going to be able to welcome the Shadow Home Secretary to the front


bench in time for the vote that's going to take place later tonight.


Perhaps members of the Labour Party are starting to realise the only


real headache is their leader. Thank you, very much, Mr Speaker.


Does the Prime Minister agree with the Director-General of the World


Trade Organisation that if Britain were to leave the EU on WTO terms,


it would cost ?9 billion in lost trade each year? What we want to do


is to ensure that we negotiate a deal with the European Union that


enables us to have the best-possible deal in trading with and operating


within the European Union single market in goods and services. I


believe that's possible, precisely because, as I have just said n


response to my honourable friend the member for Lincoln, I believe that


is a deal that is good, not just for but for the EU as well.


The Prime Minister rightly argues for true parity of esteem between


mental and physical health but parent in York have been sold that


their children must wait up to a year for an assessment by the child,


now adolescent mentalhealth services. As the Department of


Health actually does not currently record these figures, would the


Prime Minister consider making the monitoring fted waiting times a


requirement? My honourable friend has raised an important point. As I


set out a few weeks ago, the Government will be reviewing the


separation of CAMs services across the country because I recognise some


of the concerns that honourable members have made. We want to ensure


that children and young people have easy access at the right time to


mental health because of the evidence that a significant


proportion of mental health problems that arise later in life actually


sta of children and adolescents. We have made more money available to


support transformation in children and young peep's mental health but


the Shadow Health Secretary - sorry, the Health Secretary... -- young


people's mental health. He is in his place as well.


I haute Shadow Health Secretary will agree with me we need to review CAM


services and are giving the right support to children and young


people, adolescents with mental health problems and we'll look at


the issue my honourable friend has raised.


Many honourable members in this House have recently made the long


journey up to West Cumbria for the by-election and we've all


experienced the states of our roads and local railways. It's taken a


by-election for transport ministers to look seriously and show any real


interest in this. Can I is ask, is the Prime Minister planning a trip


herself, so she too can experience why we need proper investment from


this Government into our transport infrastructure in West Cumbria? We


are putting more money, the Government is putting more money


into infrastructure investment across the country but you have to


say to her, the Labour Party had 13 years to improve transport in West


Cumbria and didn't do anything about it. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I


recently visited a world class coach-building manufacture based in


my constituent and heard about their exciting plans for the future. With


my right honourable friend join me in emphasising the importance of


skills and manufacturing for our economy, especially as we look to


leave the European Union? Can I thank my honourable friend for


drawing our attention to the example of Woodall Nicholson and say how


pleased we are to hear they have good plans for the future. Can I say


he is right, as we leave the EU we will be doing that from a position


of strength. He is right that skills and manufacturing are an important


of our economy for the future that's why in the industrial strategy we


are looking at how we can develop the excellence we already have in


the UK, for the prosperous, growing economy for the future.


Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister's right honourable friend,


the member for Rushcliffe last week pointed out that her aspiration to


achieve barrier-free tariff-free trade with the single market,


getting all the benefits but paying none of the cost, was actually akin


to disappearing down the rabbit hole to wonderland. Mr Speaker, I think


she makes a very interesting choice for Alice. But, if she doesn't


manage to achieve that Higham Biggs, would she produce an analysis of


what trading on WTO rules would actually mean for our economy, so we


can make a proper choice? Can I say I commend my right honourable friend


the member for Rushcliffe for the significant service he has given to


this House and his constituents over the years. He and I have have worked


well over a number of years although I have to say when I was Home


Secretary and he was Justice Secretary, I used to say that I


locked him up and he let them out. Can I say to the Right Honourable


lady, as far as this Government is concerned, we believe it is possible


within the two-year time frame to get the agreement, not just for our


withdrawal from the European Union, but also the trade arrangements that


will ensure that we have a strong, strategic partnership with the


European Union in the future. In my right honourable friend's


meeting with Binyamin Netanyahu this week, did she press the only way to


get a lasting peace settlement is for young Palestinians and Israelis


to look Ford to a job, a sharing prosperity and a life without fear,


does she agree the only way to achieve this is face-to-face


negotiations? And will she join the Israeli Prime Minister in pressing


the Prime Minister of the Palestinian authorities for


face-to-face negotiations? My right honourable friend does make a very


important point about this. We continue as a Government a


Conservative Government in the UK to believe that the two-state solution


is a right one. That means a viable Palestinian state but also a safe


and secure Israel. And, of course, it is for the parties to negotiate.


Obviously there are others on the international arena who are doing


their work to facilitate an agreement in the Middle East. But,


ultimately it is for the two parties to agree a way forward. THE SPEAKER:


Order. Ten minute rule motion. Liz


Saville-Roberts. I beg to move that leave be given for me to bring in a


bill, to make provision for the circumstances in which the sexual


history of a victim of rate or attempted rape may be given into a


trial. To extend the range of serious offences which may be


referred to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue leniency of a


sentence. To amend the requirements for ground rules hearings, to make


provision for the issuing in certain circumstances of guidance on


safeguarding to schools, to make provision for training about serious


sexual offences, to place a duty on the Secretary of State to provide


guidelines for the courts in dealing with cases of serious sexual


offences, to require the Secretary of State to report annually on the


operation of the act and for connected purposes.


I will not take ten minutes of the House's time. I hope ministers will


agree to meet with me and others to discuss how matters in this bill


could be resolved. The bill was drafted with the assistance of the


police and victims support groups. There has been wide consultation.


There has been a dossier of harrowing experiences from victims.


They face the possibility of being humiliated and their credibility


being undermined by defence lawyers asking questions about sexual


partners, clothing and appearance. The law protects victims in


Australia, Canada and most of the United States. This rape shield


ensures that previous sexual history is not used in court. The evidence


of April is curious woman is mythically believed to be less


credible by some. This affects confidence to come forward. The


Police Commissioner for Northumbria has said that fear that complainants


would be accused of sexual behaviour with other men has historically been


a major deterrent in what men reporting rape. Failure to report is


compelled by failure to prosecute. Just 2689, or a, resulted in


convictions. 90% of rape victims are women, 10% are male. In court, one


woman faced questions she was promiscuous. Emma was followed by a


stranger who tried to rape her. Off-duty police officers heard her


screams. The trial fixated on why she chose to wear a red dress that


evening. Questioning about prior sexual conduct has been recorded.


Applications were made on the morning of the trial in many cases.


The humiliation of victims of sexual assault by irrelevant matters cannot


be allowed to continue. The present law was intended to do this, but it


is no longer serving its original purpose. The second major step


brought forward by this bill will be to stop the disclosure of the name


of the victim of rape or attempted rape to an alleged perpetrator by


the police. She was terrified her attacker would find her. She changed


her name. Another victim said, I am scared every day that he might find


me. I would have been much safer had I not reported. Myra was told by the


police that the disclosure of names is left to officer discretion. This


law will mean that names are not disclosed unless a judge agrees. It


follows a referral to voice her victims on Christmas Eve. A teenage


girl was raped by a fellow student at a party. He was arrested and


bailed with agreement of no content. On returning to school, she was


placed in the same class as the attacker. The bill allows the


Attorney-General to introduce safeguards for rape victims and to


provide guidance for criminal Justice star. These reforms will


have limited impact unless accompanied by proper cleaning. The


Secretary of State will provide a strategy for high-quality training


and advice for all relevant star. The provisions of this bill are


based on the distressing experience of victims of serious sexual crimes.


These measures, I hope, will help restore a victims faith in the


criminal justice system and allow the criminal justice system to


function more effectively. Who could argue that victims of rape should be


re-victimised by the very system through which they seek redress. I


commend this bill to the House. The question is if the honourable member


has leave to bring in the Bill. As many were of the opinion say I. The


eyes mac have it. Who will prepare and bring in the Bill? Graham Allen,


Carolyn Harris, Alison shoeless, Margaret Ritchie, Tim Loughton,


Alistair Carmichael and myself. Liz Saville Roberts.


Second reading, what day? 24 March 2017.


clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. European Union


notification of withdrawal bill, committee. Order!


Order. European Union notification of withdrawal bill. We begin with


the new clause two, for consideration not only... Point of


order. I spent a lot of time last night studying the amendments. I


have to confess to be concerned as the admissibility of a large number


of them. It's my understanding that amendments are not admissible to our


bill if they are vague or unintelligible without further


amendment. For example, I'd like to bring to your attention some of the


primary amendments to this debate. At the moment, MC2 appears to be


very vague. It implies the Prime Minister shall give some kind of


undertaking to have regard to the public interest... Order. I


understand the point of the honourable gentleman is making. But


the matter is that he is raising is a matter for debate. The fact is


that some new clauses and amendments would have been tabled have been


considered to be in order and have been selected for debate. Some are


not in order and I therefore ineligible for selection, for


debate. It is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. I


can assure the honourable gentleman though I have no obligation sold to


do, that the matter has been very carefully considered. New clause to


is perfectly in order. The honourable gentleman may well


disagree with the points which are raised in new clause to. Indeed, I


would expect him to. And I would expect him to make his disagreement


known to the House in due course. But for the moment I can assure the


honourable gentleman and a house that new clause to is perfectly in


order and it will be debated. Point of order? I'm sure the honourable


gentleman would not wish to question the judgment of the chair. I'm just


asking for an explanation... The honourable gentleman will resume his


seat, please. I thank the honourable members. I'm perfectly capable of


dealing with the matter. It is not in order for the honourable


gentleman to ask for an explanation. That would be questioning the


judgment of the chair. A matter with which... A matter up with which I


should not put. We will debate new clause two, which will now be moved


by Mr Paul Blomfield. These new clauses have been judged


to be in order. Over the last two days, we have had a series of


important debates, primarily on the process that we face over a long


period ahead of us know. Today, we move on to amendments on the


substance of the government's negotiations. The debate on process


was important precisely because it is about enabling the people of this


country through this elected parliament to hold the government to


account on the issues that matter to them. Jobs, conditions under which


our businesses operate, how we keep our country safe and secure. How we


protect the environment for future generations. How we ensure we remain


at the cutting edge of science and research. And that we have an


economy that enables us to fund our NHS and services so vital for social


fabric. In the foreword to the White Paper, the Prime Minister claims


that the country is coming together. But we are not there yet. Frankly,


some are talking about those with a different opinion as attempting to


prevent the will of the British people. That does not help. This new


clause concerns the 48% and also many of the 52%. Those who voted to


come out but did not vote to lose out. It is a man festival for the


100%. -- a manifesto. By having trading arrangements with the


European Union for goods and services that are free of tariff. On


the side of the House, we have been clear that in these negotiations it


is the economy and jobs that should come first. The government has


decided otherwise. And is taking a reckless gamble with People's jobs


and living standards, walking away from the single market and the


customs union. Thank you. I'm grateful to him for giving way. He


is putting his case clearly. It is Labour's position that the economy


is at the heart of the negotiations and if, for instance, you couldn't


get rid of free movement, so be it, because the economy is more


important? That's not what I said. What I said was the economy is at


the heart of our negotiations and that the advantages of the single


market, as the Prime Minister pointed out before 23 June, are


significant. Our view is that we should have reasonable management of


migration through the application of fair rules. And grateful to him.


Does he accept that it is completely agreed on all sides of this House


that we want maximum possible access to the single market for our


exporters and we will offer them maximum possible access to our


market? Is he further accent that we don't need an argument about it, but


the answer to whether we get that or most favoured nation WTO lies in the


hands of the other 27 states and not in the hands of this Parliament?


The honourable member is wrong, not for the first time, we have made it


clear that the economy comes first, the Prime Minister has said that her


red lines of a court of justice and immigration. Let me move on to


issues on immigration. I will. I thank my honourable friend for


giving way, I know he takes a big interest in science and technology


in the universities, will he agree with me that it is very important


for Coventry and the West Midlands economy that we get agreement on


this in relation to the single market and government's only


guaranteed resources up to 2020 should we pull out? I do indeed


think that is a very important point, the honourable member will


have noted it is one of the points highlighted in new clause two, I


will... No... I will... Well, as it is the right honourable member, I


will. I don't wish to delay him, but I listened very carefully to what


the honourable gentleman said concerning his new clause. He said


that when pressed, it was a Labour Party's view that control of


migration was an important issue, sustainable in whatever arrangements


there are, but I note from this what is missing from this new clause is


any reference whatsoever to that being an important matter. Whether


it is as important as the economy or of secondary importance, he knows


that when the balance of negotiation comes down, it remains an important


issue. What is his position, why has he left out the issue of migration


control from this to make a balanced new clause, which otherwise makes no


sense? The right honourable member is misrepresenting my observations,


but I know that the Leave campaign were strongly supportive of


alternative facts...! Can I move on specifically... Can I move on to the


issue that he raises, of... As it's you. This really is rather


important, could he confirm that the Labour Party no longer supports the


principle of free movement? Yes, or no? We have said time and again that


we believe in the reasonable management of migration through the


application of fair rules. I will come to the specific issue if


honourable and right honourable members will give me an opportunity.


I probably have been a little bit unbalanced, so I should give way to


somebody on my own site. I'm very grateful to my friend, would he


confirm the easiest way to cut migration would be to crash the


economy? LAUGHTER My honourable friend should wait and


hear what I am about to say on the issue of migration. I think I should


make some progress, I will not give way, I am conscious there is a


number of amendments and a number of people who would like to speak.


Certainly on this site we accept the concerns of migration were a


significant factor in the referendum. Probably a critical


factor. Leave campaign is, not paying attention at the moment,


talked it up relentlessly... Still not listening... Leave campaign is


talked of migration relentlessly, as has the Prime Minister, both in this


and in her previous job. Creating huge expectations. Expectations


which the White Paper then begins to talk down. On this central issue,


the Home Secretary told the home affairs select committee last week


that she had not been consulted on this part of the White Paper. One of


the main red lines defining the government's approach and the


minister responsible was not consulted, absolutely extraordinary.


For months, echoing the Leave campaign, the government has talked


about control, but where it has had control over non-EU migration for


six years, the White Paper reveals the real facts: no significant


change since 2010. I will. I'm grateful to him for giving way,


would he accept that tree movement has massively benefited our country,


economically and socially, governments may well have failed to


ensure that those benefits have been shared equally, we should not be


sacrificing our economy to anti-immigration ideology, and


securing the free movement of people should be a priority for


negotiations. The White Paper makes the point about the benefits of


migration. No, I will make... I will... I will make some progress. I


think the right honourable member has had more than his fair share of


speaking time in this debate. Let me continue, non-EU migration, there


has been no real change since 2010, for good reasons, and when the


government starts to desegregate the AA numbers, what will they find?


Doctors, nurses, academics, care workers, students. -- EA. Those


bringing key skills to business and industry and then in lower skilled


jobs, ministers have already made it clear, for example, to employers


that agricultural workers will be still free to come. I will make some


progress. The only real way of substantially reducing numbers is,


as my honourable friend pointed out, to crash the economy, it will be the


effect of the government's negotiations but assuming that is


not their plans, then... Not at this moment, in a moment... They now need


to come clean with the British people, as the right honourable


member for Meriden argued last week, and the right honourable member for


Pembrokeshire argued over the weekend, they need to come clean


with the British people on this red line, what is their plan? If taking


control of immigration is what is defining this government's approach


to "Brexit", the minister, in his closing remarks, needs to make clear


what are the government's intentions? I think the Shadow


Minister for giving way, will he agree with me that both discussions


by UK trade delegations to China and to India has made it clear that any


future trade deal with those countries will almost certainly


involve a relaxation of the current regime, and therefore, all we are


doing is displacing migration, not cutting it down? My honourable


friend is absolutely right, I think the Prime Minister was shocked to


discover, when she went to India, seeking a trade deal, that one of


the first things they want to put on the table was access to our labour


markets and access for students. He is also right to cite other


countries that he missed off the list, Australia, much heralded as a


future trade deal, who also want to make the movement of people part of


any settlement. I'm grateful for giving way, making an important


point about the value of migrant workers and others who come here.


Does he recognise, in oral areas in particular, local jobs are also Jean


anchored by the ability of people to come in, public services and local


businesses, the jobs of the indigenous population depend upon


the freedom of movement which is such an important part of single


market membership. -- local jobs also anchored by the ability for


people to come in. Is one of the reasons why the government White


Paper is so much more nuanced and caveat it and realistic than some of


the rhetoric that we have seen. As I said, I think the right honourable


member has had lots of time during this debate. SHOUTING


And I want to move on to a different topic, and I'm sure that he will be


wanting to get in later. Order, order. He rightly wishes to speed up


his introduction of the new clause, the whole house will be pleased


about when we come to the end of the debate and they have not had a


chance to speak. INAUDIBLE LAUGHTER


Our approach is different, to put the economy and the jobs of the


British people first and get the right trading relationship with the,


there may be lots of graphs in the White Paper but little clarity in


their execution. The Secretary of State for exiting the European Union


was much clearer a couple of years -- a couple of weeks ago, when he


told the house, " what we have come up with is the idea of a free-trade


agreement and and a comprehensive customs agreement that will deliver


the exact same benefits as we have all stopped I'm delighted that he


has joined us at this point. He is promising us the exact same benefits


as we have inside the single market, that is a benchmark that he has set


for these negotiations, and it is a benchmark against which we will


measure his success. And so to help in a very positive and collaborative


way, to help Secretary of State, we have tried to embed that into


paragraph B of New Clause two because livelihoods depend upon it.


Does my honourable friend agree with me that tried to get the same access


to the single market without paying any of the costs is like


disappearing down the rabbit hole to Alice's wonderland, and it is


important that we have an assessment of what WTO rules would cost if we


had to fall back on those? Good idea! My honourable friend makes an


important point, precisely why we have been pushing for proper


economic assessments and I acknowledge that it is an ambitious


target for the negotiations full of but it is the one that the Secretary


of State has set and the one against which his performance will be


measured. It's all very well to speculate on trade deals that might


or might not come to pass, while the White Paper tells us that the United


States are interested in an early trade agreement with the UK, there


is no indication of how America's first protectionism is going to give


better market access for UK manufactured goods. With this


uncertainty, the government needs to do all that it can to secure the


jobs that depend upon trading with our biggest and our closest partner,


the European Union. Listening to his remarks very


carefully, why does he think the European Union would not be seeking


a free-trade arrangement with the United Kingdom given the balance of


trade we have with the EU? The trade agreement we are seeking is one that


I am sure they will be interested in securing, whether they can secure it


on the terms, the ambitious terms the secretary of State has set


himself is the question to be looked at all stop can I... No, I have


already made it clear... The right honourable member has had plenty of


floor time. Can I then press on... In terms of... In terms of the trade


deal, it really did not help for the Prime Minister to threaten our


friends and neighbours that if she did not get her way, she would turn


this country into an offshore tax haven. Well... Honourable members


opposite may not like it but that was the very clear threat. It is not


a threat against the European Union, it is a threat against the British


people, because those voting to leave the EU did so on the


understanding that the NHS was going to receive more money. That is not


possible if we slash taxes, and this house should not allow it, which is


the purpose of the new clause, seven. I'm going to make some


progress, I am minded of the comments made by misses Lang. This


is the purpose of new clause seven, it should command support across the


house because this government has been working with partners in the


OECD on efforts to avoid a race to the bottom on corporation tax. --


Mrs Laing. That is what this clause in doses. In avoiding that race to


the bottom, new clause two would commit the government to maintaining


all existing social economic consumer and workers' rights, as


well as continuing to collaborate upon environmental protection. The


government has paid lip service to these things but I think that they


might understand people's scepticism over their intentions, the White


Paper boast of increasing enforcement budgets for the national


minimum wage compliance, but it fails to mention the appalling low


numbers of prosecutions for nonpayment of the national minimum


wage, or rice of youths in the care sector, of which the government is


aware but has failed to act. -- of abuse in the care sector.


What is it about the impact of our carbon emissions that is specific?


So specific that addressing it cannot better be done through


continued collaboration with the European Union? I've been listening


with great interest for 20 minutes. Could he tell the House, what is


what he is saying got to do with Article 50? I guess the right


honourable member had spotted that triggering Article 50 will signal


our departure from the European Union. And the implications of that


put at risk the many benefits... The former Chief Whip knows better than


anyone how business is conducted in the size. He asks me to tell the


House. There is no need. That will clearly have implications for the


many environmental, employment and consumer rights that have been one


of the last 42 years. Does he not agree that the government which has


been dragged to court on three occasions for failing on air quality


and is negotiating behind the scenes to try to drop standards, it is


really important we try to talk about environmental standards? I do


indeed. That's why it is embedded within our new clause to. I will try


to make some progress. New clause two also seeks to make progress in


preventing serious and organised crime. The Prime Minister talks


about this, but will she commit? Let me take one example. The basis of


new clause 192. Tucked away in the explanatory notes is the revelation


that it will trigger our exit from the European atomic energy agency.


I'm pretty confident that the British people on 23 June did not


vote against our leading role in nuclear energy safety and research.


It certainly wasn't on the ballot paper. It is a distinct treaty. And


it would fly in the face of common sense to throw away membership for


an organisation which brings such unequivocal benefit. Get the White


Paper is as ambiguous as the Secretary of State was last week on


the government's intention. Talking simply of leaving your tone. I don't


know whether he yesterday attended the all-party Parliamentary group on


medical research. He will know it was made clear that we need to


maintain the closest possible ties with the EU regarding funding and


free movement of people. Does he not agree the government need to listen


if we are to preserve our wonderful scientific research base in this


country. I was at a meeting of medical research charities on


Monday, at which they made precisely that point. And indeed ensuring that


we had the right relationship starting ideally with membership of


the European medicines agency. Thank you. He has been generous. He


probably knows I have the colour fusion Centre in my constituency,


which is very concerned about this issue. I have had conversations with


them. The conversations said that the amendments that are in this bill


are not helpful. That is their decision on this. They are much


better dealing with ministers and putting pressure on the Treasury to


achieve their objectives. I thank the honourable member for his point.


But I think a very effective way of putting pressure to save the jet


centre that he is referring to, which is a hugely important


facility, is bypassing amendment -- new clause 192. The Minister is


making an important point. These hugely important research projects


in nuclear have long leading ties. If we are to trigger knotting to


leave the European Union, one of the concerns is no agreement will be put


in place at the end of the two years. Does he agree with me that


there should be a transitional arrangement? He makes an important


point and I agree. I would press ministers to give greater clarity on


their intentions. As I say, the Secretary of State so far has been


ambiguous. I think I should respond to the appeal that we make some


progress. It has been suggested that the government's reservations about


Euroton is because the Court of justice of the EU is the regulatory


body for the treaty. If that is the case, then obsessional opposition to


the Court of justice leads them to one to tear up an organisation which


supports a critical industry. Membership which, as the honourable


member has pointed out, led us to hosting the biggest nuclear fusion


programme in the world. And going to make some progress. And on which


nuclear safety is important. I will finish this point. Before the


Secretary of State leaves, I think it would be helpful for the


government to explain their intentions. The people in this


country deserve to know on Euroton. People voting in Copeland in a


couple of weeks will want to know, their jobs are on the line. I will


give the Secretary of State or indeed the Minister the opportunity


to intervene to give an an ambiguous statement it is the government's


intention to remain in Euroton. I was providing the opportunity to


give way to those who can make a useful commitment. Otherwise, I


think their silence says everything. There clearly is much more to be


said about our future relationship. There are many poor people who wish


to see it and done many more amendments. I will draw my remarks


to a clause. Order. The House must allow the shadow minister to draw


his remarks to a close or no one else will have an opportunity to


speak and it will not be my fault. I will draw my remarks to a close with


a simple wish. If we are to bring people together around plans that


address the concerns of the 100%, our new clause is provide a basis


for doing so. And supporting them would be a good first step. The


question is that new clause two be read a second time. Mr John Redwood.


I find myself in agreement with new clause two. I think it makes


perfectly sensible statements about what our negotiating aims should be.


I think it is a statement of the White Paper policy. We wish to


maintain a strong and growing economy, as we have done ever since


the Brexit fault. Of course we want to maintain peace in Northern


Ireland, and have excellent trading agreements with those in Europe. Of


course we want to have lots of cooperative activity with European


states. And of course we wish to maintain the important rights and


legal protections which are in European law. The government has


made it crystal clear in the White Paper and in many statements and


answers to questions and debates from the front bench that all those


things are fundamental to the negotiating aims of the government.


I just need to explain why, having exciting them with my agreement, I


will not vote in favour of it. As it is agreed, I will agree with the


front bench. Although the words did not explicitly say this is what has


to be delivered, if it's embedded in legislation, the indication is that


all these things have to be delivered and some of them are not


in the gift of this government or this Parliament. I return to this


point that the opposition never seems to grasp. We are all united in


the aims of our trade being tariff free, but it will be decided by the


other 27, not by this Parliament or ministers. Given that the list in


new clause two does indeed exactly match some of the things in White


Paper, so therefore is pointless because they are all covered in a


White Paper, isn't it interesting that the two areas it doesn't


mention our immigration and strengthening the United Kingdom. I


think those missions are very significant. A powerful point. I


would add others. It's a shame it doesn't talk about fishing. It


doesn't talk about immigration policy. We still don't seem to


understand that you have to remove the jurisdiction of the European


Court of Justice if this Parliament is in future going to be free to


have a fishing policy that helps restore the fishing grounds of


Scotland and England, that has a policy that makes sense to have some


limit on the numbers of people coming to this country. The wish


list is encapsulated in two words. Single market. He hasn't been


listening to what I been saying. The whole point about the single market


is it does not allow you to have a sensible fishing policy or borders


policy. I wonder if the honourable gentleman would like to reconsider


what he has just said. He just said the single market does not allow you


to have a sensible fishing policy. But Norway has such a policy, as is


mentioned in this document, Scotland's place in Europe. What we


want, and I think what is agreed across this House, even by some


members of the SNP, is we want maximum tariff free barrier free


access to their internal market, but it is not on offer from the other 27


for us to stay in the single market but not comply with all the other


things we have to comply with as a member of the EU. There is no


separate think all the single market. It's a series of laws going


over all sorts of boundaries and barriers. If you withdraw from the


EU, you withdraw from the single market. His example was on fishing


policy. Does he agree as a point of fact that normally is in the single


market but pursues its own independent fishing policy? Yes or


no? Normally decided to sacrifice control over borders in order to get


certain other things from a different kind of relationship from


the EU, but we don't wish to join the EEA because we don't wish to


sacrifice control over our borders. Norway was part of the Nordic free


movement area with Sweden, Finland and Denmark way before the European


Union was even invented, the honourable gentleman is absolutely


wrong! Now it is far bigger than that, that was part of their deal,


they have to pay a lot of money in, which rarely we do not wish to pay,


why would we want to do that? My right honourable friend, does he


agree with me that if members opposite are really serious about


the flourishing of the economy, 80% of which is services, they should


accept that we need to be able to do trade deals on services and that


means we need to leave the day, so we can negotiate about regulation.


-- EEA. That is quite right, they nor the rest of the whole of the


world, we have a profitable balanced trade with the rest of the world,


the often end in surplus with the rest of the world, massive deficit


on goods with the EU alone, and there is much more scope for road in


our trade with the rest of the world than there is with the EU, partly


because the rest of the world is growing much faster overall, and


partly because we have a chance to have a much bigger proportion of the


market there, then we carry me have, obviously right now we have advanced


trade with EE you, which is probably in decline because of the obvious


economic problems in the euro area. -- EU. Does he know that while the


Shadow Minister made known mention of the importance of controlling


immigration, in use new clause two, there is mention of deserving peace


in Northern Ireland though he never mentions one. Does the member not


accept that this is perhaps because he understands that Brexit has no


implications for peace in Northern Ireland, it is not a cause for


increased terrorism and indeed the terrorists never fought to stay in


the EU, they fought to get out of Britain. The honourable gentleman


has made his own point, we always Northern Ireland well. There is


nothing on the face of new clause to that is remotely objectionable, as


an objective for the country, in the forthcoming negotiations, to either


leave is all remain as, but does he accept that it is desirable to have


tariff free access to the single market, it is not possible to have


access to any market if you don't accept and is to the regulations in


that market, otherwise it regulates barriers, and you need to have some


dispute procedure. If you start rejecting the European court of


justice and saying all the regulations have got to be British


regulations, and we are free to alter them when we feel like it, you


are actually not pursuing the objectives in new clause two, to


which he expresses otherwise complete agreement. Of course when


you enter free-trade agreement or other trade arrangement, there is a


dispute resolution procedure, a clear one in the WTO, the way that I


see it happening, we will register the best deal we can get with the EU


under our WTO membership and it will be governed by normal WTO resolution


procedures, which we have no problem with. The problem with the EEC J is


it presumes to strike down the wishes of the British people and


good statute made by this House of Commons over a wide range of issues,


which means we are no longer sovereign all of the time we are in


it. He has argued that membership of the EU inhibits our ability to train


with the expanding economies of the rest of the world. Could he explain


if this is so, why Germany exports almost four times as much as we do


to China, and exceeds our exports to both India and Brazil, the other


fast-growing economies, and France also exports more to China and


Brazil than we do? What is it that they do within the EU that we will


do when we come out? It is quite of years Germany will export more at


the early stages of development in an emerging market economy because


they tend to export capital equipment of the kind you need to


industrialise, which is what China bought in the last decade, now China


is a much richer country, she is going on to have massive expansion


of services and that is where we have an advantage, with the right


kind of arrangement with China we can accelerate growth of our


exports, which they will now want rather more rapidly. The honourable


gentleman should understand, the EU imposes massive and I think


dangerous barriers against the emerging market world for its


agricultural Rogers, the kind of deals that we can offer to an


emerging market country is to say that we will buy their much cheaper


food by taking the tariff barriers of the products, in return for


having much better access to the service industrial goods markets,


where a rehab products they might like to buy, my honourable friend,


worried about British farmers, British farmers will have a subsidy


regime based on environmental factors, which we would want to


continue. What impact will that have on Welsh agriculture and the rural


economy? I just explained, it should boost it, I am sure, first of all,


more market opportunities will open up for large farmers, but we will


also debate in this house have with a support regime, I hope it is one


which does not only reward environmental objectives but is


friendly to promoting the greater efficiencies that can come from more


farm mechanisation and farm enlargement, which will be a very


important part of the journey to eliminate some of that massive


deficit we currently run in food with the rest of the EU, whilst


being more decent to the emerging world, the poor countries, whom we


deliberately deny access to our markets. Can I take it from what he


has just said it that in any free-trade deal with New Zealand, in


the interests of getting good access to the New Zealand market for


financial services and he will continue to ensure that sheep


farmers in this country are not sacrificed in any such free-trade


agreement? I am sure that would be a very appropriate part of our


discussions when our country holds it with New Zealand and Australia, I


broadly take the view, as I thought the party opposite was taking the


view, getting rid of tariffs is a good idea, they have spent six


months saying how we should not have tariffs on trade with Europe, now I


discover they want tariffs on trade with everywhere else in the world,


so I think they are arguing a big contradiction. Does he not agree


with me that it is a truly remarkable thing that Germany makes


three times as much money on coffee than developing countries because of


tariffs, does he not also agree with me that at the moment we are


noticing a problem with out of season fruit and vegetables in


supermarkets, in part because of the pressures that applied to producers


in North Africa, it is no good colleagues opposite having a go at


those who are concerned about international development


assistance, if they are prepared to tolerate tariff barriers of that


sort, that act against the interests of developing countries. We have


teased out something important in this debate, we have teased out that


they want no barriers against very ferocious competition from


agriculture on the continent, undoubtedly damaged an awful lot of


Welsh and Scottish and English farms, but want maximum tariff


barriers on trade with the rest of the world so we still need to buy


food, dear food, that does not seem to be a very appealing package. On


the land issue, just last week I visited Randall Park foods in my


constituency, who slaughter and process several hundred thousand


Welsh lambs every single year, and are salivating at the chance of


opening up in particular the US market, where Welsh lamb is


underrepresented, and there is huge potential for export more than we


already do. I think there are some great English, Welsh, Scottish and


Northern Ireland is agricultural products and with the right tariff


system for the rest of the world we can do considerably better with


quality products. I congratulate my right honourable friend on his great


speech here, if I may say, but I would like to ask one question which


goes for the merits of this particular clause, the new clause,


the Prime Minister shall give an undertaking, which is clearly a


mandatory requirement under statute, which itself calls for judicial


review if somebody decides to do so but to preserve peace in Northern


Ireland...? As a matter of public interest, as a matter of judicial


review, I have never ever seen, in all my experience, a clause which is


so unbelievably unworkable, and completely contrary to all the


assumptions that one would rely upon for a decent... INAUDIBLE


I am grateful for you draw in me back onto the central point of my


speech, kindly said I'd made a good speech, I think I just responded to


everybody else making their own speeches and riding their own


hobbyhorses, I hope they have enjoyed giving their hobbyhorses a


good ride on this occasion. To summarise my briefcase, it is this:


the aims are fine, they happen to be agreed by the government, they are


disappointing because they leave out some very important aims that matter


to the British people, taking back control of our borders and laws and


dealing with certain problems, there are many others, they leave out, as


they always do, the huge opportunities to have so much better


policies in areas like farming and fishing, which would be better for


our own industry and better for consumers. They have now revealed


this fundamental contradiction in wanting tariff free trade in Europe,


with massive tariff barriers everywhere else, and don't seem to


think through the logic of it. My conclusion, nothing wrong with the


aims, we need the extra aims that the government has spelt out, it


would be quite silly to incorporate negotiating names in a piece of


legislation. I believe in the government's good-faith, we are


mercifully united in wanting tariff free barrier free trade with the


rest of Europe, it is not in this house's gift let alone ministers


gift to deliver that but if they are sensible on the continent, they will


want it because they get much more out of this trade than we do and


they must understand that if we put in, most-favoured-nation tariffs,


they are low or nonexistent on the things we sell to them but they can


be penal on the things where they are being particularly successful at


selling to us. Great idea, the aims, but the silly idea, to put it into


law. Joanna Cherry. Today's debate is about on amendments about


priorities for negotiation, the UK priorities for the negotiations of


withdrawal from the European Union. I want to talk about Scotland's


priorities. We also have the SNP put forward some amendments about the


situation of Gibraltar. Found at amendment number 54. We deal with


the fact that this bill has omitted to include Gibraltar within its


remit. Rather curious, given the great love and affection that


members opposite have for Gibraltar, and those of us who remembers of the


select committee, will have been very impressed with the evidence


that the Chief minister for Gibraltar gave to us a couple of


weeks ago, Fabian Picardo, the main concern is to preserve sovereignty.


And he was very happy to be part of the red white and blue "Brexit" that


has been spoken about. It is important that we take into account


Gibraltar, the honourable member for Ilford South, that has a long and


admirable commitment to the people of Gibraltar, and its interests, has


laid amendments, in particular number 29, which I'm sure he's going


to tell us about in detail in due course, which would put upon the


British government a requirement to consult with Gibraltar before


triggering Article 50. I'm not going to make a speech now, I hope to be


called later, I would like to emphasise that there is a very


important need to protect the interests of Gibraltar. Whereas, as


she said, we are not referring to Gibraltar in this spirit, a it was


specifically mentioned by an amendment when the legislation was


agreed to hold the referendum, the people of Gibraltar voted in that


referendum. Surely we should have an amendments to the Bill which accepts


that Gibraltar's interests are also considered. Absolutely, and I have


here from a -- have here a letter from the deputy chief minister, he


says that it would be politically useful to Gibraltar to have


confirmation and it would follow logically from the original consent


that Gibraltar already gave to the extension of the actual UK


referendum act to Gibraltar. But I will come back to that in more


detail... It's important to back up the member for Ilford South, the


connection that Gibraltar shows to the United Kingdom and to British


Gibraltar should be reflected in a sense, members should take this very


seriously, about supporting the amendment from the member for Ilford


South, it would send a signal to Gibraltar that they are


respectively, members on both sides of the house respect Gibraltar.


Please, listen to the member for Ilford South in the speech. I


totally agree with my honourable friend, again, reading from the


letter, from the deputy chief minister of Gibraltar, he says he


understands that our amendments mirror a number of others which have


been tabled, seeking to make clear the application of the act of


Gibraltar, and this would strengthen Gibraltar's case to be mentioned in


the Article 50 letter. Scotland shares with Gibraltar a desire to be


mentioned in the Article 50 letter, and the big priority for Scotland is


that the British government take into account the Scottish


Government's request for a differentiated deal for Scotland. We


had a new clause about this new clause 145, which would require the


British government to commit to such a differentiated deal, before


triggering Article 50, that has been held over until today, but we will


not put it to a vote because we are prepared to give the UK Government


one last chance to respond to this document, Scotland's place in


Europe, laid before the British government before Christmas, some


seven weeks ago... I will in a moment, some seven weeks ago, and to


which no formal response has yet been received.


We are to tell the morning from the Scottish Government's minister for


negotiations with the United Kingdom about this document. Far more


detailed document in its proposals than anything the British Government


has prepared so far. I give way. Thank you. I don't disagree with her


when it comes to Gibraltar and also maybe even Scotland. But we are


acting on behalf of the whole of the UK. Either any other places that if


there was to be a list, such as the Isle of Man or jersey, would she


like to see a long list of places listed in the letter? The


arrangements for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are different


and they are not in the European Union. Perhaps you would like to


read this document which will explain that to him. Within the


wider UK and Crown dependencies, there are in fact some


differentiated agreements. Going back to the case of Gibraltar, it is


in the European Union but not in the customs union. Al return to


Gibraltar in due course. There was a direct quote from the Daily


Telegraph. Theresa May has indicated the formal process will not be


triggered until there is an agreed approach backed by Scotland. Shirley


the honourable members opposite are not intending for the Prime Minister


to break her word? We are not asking for a veto. This is a compromise.


Whereby Scotland could remain in the single market while the rest of the


UK exits the single market. Members opposite are shaking their heads.


Look up the difference between a veto and a compromise. It's rather a


radical difference. I'm going to make some progress, Mrs Laing. Make


some progress and then I will take some more interventions perhaps from


people who have not yet spoken in this debate. The Scottish


Government, as I said, have put forward a proposal and we are


waiting for that proposal to be taken seriously. Now, the signs that


the positional Scotland, the compromise we have put forward, are


going to be taken seriously by the government and this House have not


been promising so far. Not a single amendment has been passed to this


bill, despite the numerous amendments tabled by all sorts of


different groupings within this House. Many with significant


cross-party support. And even yesterday when the government was


forced into announcing a significant concession, they were


extraordinarily reluctant to commit that concession to writing. We'll


know by. They have fought tooth and nail through the courts and in this


House to avoid the sort of scrutiny that those of them who sought to


leave the European Union have been trumpeting for years, telling us how


fantastic this sovereign mother of Parliaments is. Yet we are the rated


for having the effrontery for attempting to amend bill. I will not


give way. We heard ample from the honourable gentleman the other day.


I will not give way. This bill, Mrs Lang, is being railroaded through


this House, with scant regard for democratic process. Here's an


example. On Monday, when we debated the amendments which concerned


devolved parliaments, only one of my honourable members got to speak.


When I attempted to double that, I was told to sit down, shut up and


know my place. Mrs Lang, I don't mind being insulted and affronted in


this House. But what people need to remember is that it's not just me,


it's the people who elected me that are being insulted and affronted,


when I am prevented from speaking about amendments on which my name


appears. The honourable members opposite are extraordinarily relaxed


about the effect this sort of thing has on Scottish public opinion. I


don't like the take the Herald newspaper. It's rather difficult to


get hold of in the House of Commons, but if they do, they will see the


headline. Support for independence surges on hard Brexit VAIO. Are


backing for a yes vote in another independence referendum has risen to


49% on the back of the hard Brexit value. Make no mistake, and it gives


me great pleasure to see this, that the barracking of honourable members


opposite and the preventing of SNP MPs from speaking in this House


plays right into our hands and results in headlines like this.


Support for independence surges. Point of order. On Monday, when we


were debating the amendments on devolution and the arrangements, I


spoke about the amendments that were on the paper. I seem to remember I


took many interventions, including from the right honourable and


learnable lady. She was not therefore prevented from speaking


and in I seem to remember Mrs Lang, that the person in the chair at the


time made great efforts to facilitate the honourable and


learnable lady making a speech, there was then a kerfuffle


afterwards when she objected to the amount of time she got. She had a


fair opportunity on Monday. The honourable gentleman doesn't need to


put the record straight because it's a matter of record. I have myself


looked in Hansard and by the simple use of my arithmetical powers, I


have worked out how many people manage to speak for how long, what


contributions they made and the honourable Lady is asserting she was


prevented from speaking. Because there was a time limit on the


debate. The honourable Lady came quite late in the debate. There was


not an awful lot of time left in which she could speak. But in saying


that she was prevented from speaking, I think the honourable


Lady is making a rhetorical point rather than an arithmetical point.


Because the honourable Lady's contribution to the debate has been


considerable, and she will note that she has been given the opportunity


very early in today's proceedings to speak. And I look forward to hearing


the honourable Lady speak to the amendments to which she has put her


name. And that is what we should stick to. I am grateful for your


clarification and indeed I am speaking today because I am leading


for the third party in this House, as is my right to speak in the


debate. The honourable gentleman opposite is terribly anxious to make


an intervention. In order to put him out of his misery, I'd like to hear


what he has to say no. And grateful. The point I was going to make in her


remarks was on Gibraltar, when she was waxing lyrical about the


importance party had to Gibraltar, when I was listening to the evidence


to the chief minister of Gibraltar, he was rather more committed to the


continuance of the United Kingdom than the Scottish Nationalist Party.


That's called democracy. The people of Gibraltar vote for parties that


wish to remain part of the UK. The people of Scotland vote for parties


that wish to be independent. I'm happy to endorse Gibraltar's right


to self-determination, as I am indeed for Scotland or other


nations. Gibraltar is not in the United Kingdom. It wants an


association with Britain, which is different. The United Kingdom dates


from December 1922. Gibraltar does not have a member in this parliament


because it is not in the United Kingdom. It is independent of the


UK. That is something I would quite like. British but not in the UK.


Thank you. I will come back to Gibraltar in a moment. Continuing


with the priority in these negotiations from the Scottish


prospective. The document I'm holding here is a highly considered


and detailed case which has been put forward for the British Government.


We're still waiting for any kind of considered or detailed response.


This morning, the exiting the EU committee heard from legal experts.


We were told the proposals in this document are credible and merit


examination. What the Scottish Government is asking for from the


British Government is now more than the British Government is asking for


from the other 27 member states in the EU, and that is for


consideration in negotiations on our position. Our position is somewhat


less substantial than the position that the British Government won't


put forward in Europe. I will make some progress, then I will give way.


The Scottish Government is looking for a response to this document and


that's why we're not going to push new clause 145. There is a meeting


taking place this afternoon of the joint ministerial committee and we


are still prepared to put faith for the time being in the promised the


Prime Minister made, which my right honourable friend has just reminded


us of, about Scotland's wishes being taken into account. Make no mistake,


we will expect the Prime Minister to deliver on that promise. We will


expect to have our position, just as Gibraltar what's its position put


forward in the Article 50 letter, and if that doesn't happen, the


Prime Minister breaks promise and we will hold another independence


referendum as we are nearly 50% and not a word has been uttered in the


campaign. She referenced the evidence session from this morning.


Would you agree with me is that there were a number of unanswered


questions that came through in that committee, including what


regulations Scotland may be subject to if it were to be in the EEA, what


the impact might be on the trade relationship with the rest of the


UK, what controls at the border might be or not, if Scotland had


free movement but the rest of the UK did not? And what payment would need


to be made by Scotland and where it would come from. I don't agree. The


transcript will be available shortly. When honourable members


read a transcript, they will see that the answers to the questions


they were asking bring this document. At least one member


admitted they had not read the document. As it is to be hoped, that


the British Government are studying this document... Thank you. She very


touchingly says her document is compromised, but doesn't she and her


party understand that a compromise document is one that she and I agree


and I don't agree with her document. I've got some news for the


honourable gentleman. When the United Kingdom government goes to


negotiate with the European Union, 27 member states, about exiting the


EU, then the UK Government will be looking for a compromise. At the


moment, it's looking for things the EU member states are not willing to


give. But that's how negotiations work. If he had read the document,


he would know that although normally is in the single market, it's not in


the Common fisheries policy. Scotland is looking for an


arrangement similar to that of Norway, and the Norwegians seem to


be doing pretty well. It looks like a successful country. I give way.


I would expect the right honourable member to have kept his pledge if he


had made the same one as the Prime Minister. I hope the example today


of Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Switzerland is in the European


economic area, Switzerland is not -- Liechtenstein is not. They have a


frictionless border. Indeed. Many of the questions that honourable


members in this house raise with the Scottish National Party about how


these matters might be managed are rancid in this document, which is


the product of research and consultation that has been going on


while the British government has been going around in circles trying


to decide whether it wants to be in the single market or the customs


union. The Scottish Government has been looking at a considered


compromise and answer to the dilemma in which we find ourselves, where


the majority of Scotland wish to remain part of the European Union,


but the rest of the UK wishes to exit. My honourable friend made an


important point a few minutes ago about Norway and the benefits that


could accrue particularly to my constituency with a Norwegian style


deal that would indeed help our fishing interests, but would also


help our fish processors and all who depend on export markets, most of


which go into the European Union at present. Indeed. It is no secret


that of the minority of people who voted to leave the European Union


union in Scotland, a significant proportion were made up of people


working in the fishing industry, both because they have received such


a bad deal over the years as a result of inept negotiated by the


British government, which Scottish Government ministers have been kept


out of on the common fisheries policy. The advantage of this


compromise proposal for fishermen is that at the same time of coming out


of the Common fisheries policy, they would still have access to the


single market. I was in Norway recently and I saw a presentation


about how the Norwegian fishing industry is progressing on the back


of such an arrangement, and it is doing significantly better than the


Scottish fishing industry. I am grateful to the honourable lady for


giving way. Isn't the more fundamental difficulty with the


proposal in the document she has been referring to about Scotland


remaining in the single market that there is no evidence that I have


seen that any of the other 27 member states, never mind what the British


government view is, that any of the 27 member states have indicated that


they would consent to such an arrangement, given that all of the


other parallels relate to countries, and that is not the case in relation


to this proposal? This issue highlights the reason why I am


belabouring this point. For Scotland to get the compromise deal we are


proposing, the United Kingdom government would first have to


accept it as something they would then put forward to the other 27


member states. The other member states are waiting for the United


Kingdom to put its money where its mouth is and to come to the table


and negotiate. They need us to put our own house in order before we do


that. The honourable gentleman opposite may not like it, but the


Prime Minister made a promise to involve Scotland in negotiations and


to look at options for Scotland. We are withholding our right to force


our amendment to a vote today in the hope that the Prime Minister will be


good to her word. People in Scotland are watching and waiting. This


document has widespread support. It has the merit of uniting levers and


remainders, because it has a compromise that appeals to both.


Wouldn't she agree that in the event that Scotland was in the single


market and England, Wales and Northern Ireland were not, industry


would move from England and Wales to Scotland with tariff free access to


the single market, and industry would move from Northern Ireland to


southern Ireland, ripping open the peace process which has been denied


earlier? I think the SNP's position on the peace process has been made


clear in this House. We would want to do everything to support it. We


don't wish to see the rest of the UK suffer as a result of coming out of


the single market. That is why the principal suggestion in this


document was that the whole of the UK should remain in the single


market. I am sorry for members representing English and Welsh


constituencies that the Prime Minister has now ruled that of the


table, but I am sure those members will understand why we representing


Scotland must try and see if we can get a compromise deal for Scotland.


Further to the previous intervention, does the honourable


lady recognise that if the government did accept that they


could negotiate a separate place for Scotland within the single market,


that could equally read across in respect of Northern Ireland and


would be particularly compatible in terms of upholding the Good Friday


agreement in many important ways and would go to the heart of upholding


the peace, not upsetting it? Indeed. The honourable gentleman makes his


point as usual with great force and clarity. The difficulty is that this


morning, we heard in the committee for exiting the European Union from


experts who have been observing the process of negotiation between the


British government and the devolved nations and the joint ministerial


committee. These negotiations lack transparency and they have not made


significant progress. That is a matter of regret not just for


Scotland, but the Northern Ireland and Wales. If my honourable friend


as surprised as I am that there seems to be a suggestion that it


would be to Scotland's economic advantage to be in the single market


when we seem to be debating leaving the EU in the first phase? Surely


what is good for Scotland would be good for the whole of the UK.


Indeed, and we made it clear in this document that we felt it would be to


the advantage of the whole of the UK to remain in the singer Martin.


Unfortunately, the Prime Minister, in what my right honourable friend


has described as a foolish negotiating tactic, has ruled that


out from the outset. I am going to make some progress now, because I am


conscious that a lot of other people wish to speak. And I did say there


was going to move on to deal with our amendments on the topic of


Gibraltar. As the honourable member for Ilford South pointed out earlier


in relation to Gibraltar, it was of course covered by the EU referendum


act. If members look back to section 12 one of the EU referendum act, it


extended to the United Kingdom and Gibraltar. And there was an


overwhelming vote in Gibraltar to remain, but when the chief minister


of Gibraltar came to give evidence to the exiting the EU select


committee, he explained that they already have a differential


agreement for Gibraltar whereby they are in the EU, but not in the


customs union. This has worked well for them and they would like to be


involved in a Brexit deal that would guarantee continued access to the


single market. But they don't want to be forgotten. In the letter I


quoted from earlier, the Gibraltarian government support


these amendments is to get Gibraltar brought within the ambit of this


bill so that Gibraltar's interests can be taken into account in the


triggering of Article 50. One question I have for the minister


when he sums up is, why has Gibraltar been omitted? Was it, God


forbid, an oversight? And if it was, now they have the opportunity to


correct that with the assistance of the SNP. Or was it a deliberate


omission? If so, how does that omission of Gibraltar from the ambit


of this bill sit with the assurances that the British government has


given Gibraltar that its interests will be protected? I am sure the


honourable gentleman will speak with greater knowledge than I can about


Gibraltar. The purpose behind these amendments is to make sure that


Gibraltar is not forgotten about. We feel there may have been an


oversight, so we are attempting to assist. If there hasn't been an


oversight and the omission is deliberate, we need to know why and


honourable members need to consider whether it would be appropriate to


rectify that omission. There are a number of other amendments today


which I think would ameliorate this bill. The honourable gentleman from


the Labour front bench spoke very ably about new clause two and some


of the other amendments. New clause two, I find slightly disappointing,


because it doesn't innumerate the interests of Scotland as a


particular consideration to take into account. But we are not going


to push our amendment on that two of, because we hope there might be


some fruitful outcome from the joint Mr Rutte committee taking this


today. -- the joint ministerial committee. The comments of the Prime


Minister on the 15th of July, I hope will have greater gravity than the


previous comments of the previous Prime Minister in September when an


Channel 4 News, David Cameron said that if Scotland voted to remain in


the UK, all forms of devolution were possible. Yet if it came to the


Scotland Bill, my learned friend was a member of Parliament and we had


the Scotland Bill and none of the amendments were taken, ensuring that


none of the forms of devolution were possible. We have had one broken


prime ministerial promise from one Prime Minister. Let's hope this


Prime Minister can keep her word. Order. I give the honourable


gentleman a lot of leeway, but we are discussing this bill right now.


We can't go on to previous prime ministers and previous bills. But I


am sure the honourable lady, whose legal expertise is the best in the


House, will find a way of saying what she wants to say. I am bringing


my remarks to a conclusion as I am very conscious that people want to


speak. The SNP welcomes many of the other amendments that have been


tabled this afternoon, for example new clause 100 supporting amendment


aimed at securing women's rights and equality. We believe the EU is about


more than just a single trading market. It is also about the social


ties that bind us and the social protections that the EU has


guaranteed. On that matter of quality and protections for our


people, does the honourable lady agree that what we have seen thus


far since we were elected to this place does not fill us with any hope


that this government, when it has its great power grab, will uphold


the protections that the EU has brought and will fight for Citizens'


writes? I agree that it is a real concern held by many parties in this


house. So we support any amendments that seek to underline the social


aspects of the EU, for example clause 166, which makes the point


about the rights of young people and the importance of young people's


ability to live, work, travel and study across Europe being of such


benefits to them. This party fought to 16 and 17-year-olds to get the


vote in the referendum, but that was not to be. Perhaps the result might


have been different if that had been allowed. Later today, we will also


be voting on some amendments that were carried over from earlier in


the week including new clause 27, an SNP and about protecting the rights


of EU nationals. In conclusion, I would like to say something about


that. I think it is a view shared across this House that we ought not


to trigger article 50 until we have given some reassurance to EU


nationals living in the UK about their rights. Furthermore, we have


evidence in the exiting the European Union committee from representatives


of not only EU nationals in the UK, but more importantly for some


members of this House, UK nationals living abroad who said that a


unilateral declaration of goodwill from the British government, who


after all have caused the problem by holding the referendum and allowing


the Leave vote to happen, a unilateral undertaking to guarantee


the rights of EU nationals in the United Kingdom and the feeling of


the witnesses was that that would be met with a reciprocal undertaking


from other member states rather than using individual human beings as


bargaining chips. If the honourable gentleman wants to make an


intervention, I am happy to take it. He obviously just wants to shout at


me from a sedentary position. If finally, before the second reading


of this bill, I raised the point of order about the statement that the


Secretary of State made under section 901A of the Human Rights Act


saying that in his view the prisons of this bill are compatible with


convention rights. I was not normally in the habit of giving out


free legal advice, but I am happy to do so on this occasion, which is


that if this bill proceeds and if we trigger article 50 without taking


any steps to protect the rights of EU nationals living in the UK, the


British government could find itself faced with a challenge under the


Human Rights Act to the compatibility of this act with


Article eight and article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights


and possibly claims. I know many honourable members opposite don't


hold any great affection for the European Convention on Human Rights,


but for the time being, even when we exit the European Union, we will


still be signatories to it and the British courts will still be bound


by it. So I am offering a helpful word of warning to the government


that if they want to save some taxpayers' money, they might want to


think carefully about addressing this issue before they are met with


a slew of legal claims. I thank her for giving way. One of


the key workers in our society, both in research and industry, are EU


nationals in science and research. World-class researchers. We should


be begging them to stay. Instead of using them as bargaining chips. What


we are damaging here is goodwill and how they feel valued in our society.


Indeed. I know she takes a great interest in this area. Like me, she


will be aware that many Scottish universities including Herriot Watt


and Napier University in my own constituency, are extremely


concerned about the brain drain which could happen resulting in the


failure to reassure EU nationals in their rights. With that, I move


amendment 54 and new clause 154, on behalf of the Scottish National


Party. And grateful for the chance to speak briefly on some of the


clause is. It's a great pleasure to speak after the honourable and learn


a lady I gather has not had the opportunity to make her case, but


now having 10% of the time, she has made her case very eloquently. I


want to make some cases very quickly. There's a lot of noise


coming, so it's hard to think or speak. I will plough on. I want a


dog about the rights of EU nationals living in the UK. I had a meeting on


Friday to discuss Brexit with 150 people. Lots of people from


different European countries. My constituency has a great deal of


scientific research. These are people who contribute. I know people


talk about the economic contributions, but I deeply values


are social contribution as well. These are incredible people who


provide not only world-class expertise to many businesses and


science, but also a huge contribution to the communities in


my constituency. We are obviously devastated by what has happened.


They seek reassurance from the government. I won't support any


particular amendments to night because I think that would mess up


the bill and it wouldn't necessarily achieve what the amendments seek to


achieve, and I am also deeply reassured by the Home Secretary's


letter circulated earlier. And also by the Prime Minister's repeated


comments about how she is going to make it an absolute priority to get


clarity for the rights... And grateful to him for giving way. He


said there was a letter from the Home Secretary. Is that a letter for


Conservative Party members? Now he has referred to it in the House,


isn't it is appropriate it should be in the library for all of us. It was


addressed dear colleague, it might have just been for me. I give way.


Point of order. Is it appropriate for an honourable member to refer to


a document which is not available to the whole house? I believe it is


appropriate for an Oracle board member to refer to whichever


document they might wish to quote. -- honourable member. We all have


private correspondence. Point of order. It would be in order that the


custom and practice is a ministerial letter about a debate should be


circulated amongst members and placed in the library. He is right


as ever. As often. If there were a letter or any


document produced by a government minister in his or her capacity as a


government minister, which was intended for the information of the


whole house, it would indeed have to be placed in the library or


distributed upon these benches. Hypothetically, if there is a letter


addressed privately to an rouble member, then that is a member for


that honourable member. And already in lots of trouble from my lips, so


I suppose another faux pas won't hurt. I've only been here for 11


years, so I'm still learning the ropes. He's only been here as long


as I have. I was going to assist him. The Prime Minister has been


very clear that she intends to have a very generous approach on this


matter. Coming back to the point, part of the roadblock here is that


some EU member states won't negotiate with us until we have


triggered Article 50. The quicker we get this bill on the statute book,


the quicker we can get that arrangement in place and reassure EU


nationals and British citizens overseas. An excellent point. A


difficult road lies ahead. Some unsavoury compromises are having to


be made. Make no mistake, the mood of the House is to move as quickly


as possible to provide reassurance to European citizens living in this


country and I wanted to use this opportunity before I got mired in


procedural quagmire and brought closer to the Chief Whip's


tarantula, I want to make it as clear as possible that I stand


filled square behind European citizens living in this country and


further contribution. I give way. Thank you. We have heard much about


this idea of global leadership. Could he explain to me what his


definition of global leadership is, if it is not to be a leader and


stand up for EU nationals living in this country? She allows me to segue


into my next point on free trade. Those of you who were lucky enough


to hear me speak at the second reading now that this constant talk


about free trade treaties is driving me around the bend. As a minister, I


took part in the state visit from the Chinese president. I was in


Westminster Hall to hear the address from President Obama. I feel to


understand the lack of British influence that seems to have existed


since we have been members of the EU. I thought the point about


Germany's trade with China was well made. What surprises me about this


constant reference to free trade treaties is when it comes to


negotiating them, and now we are able to negotiate them in a matter


of days of leaving you, it strikes me as not being aware of what


happens in the real world to think that our farmers for example I think


are the best example will simply sign up without a murmur to free


trade treaties to countries like the United States, who have different


welfare standards two hours. I understand the arguments of people


who support free trade. We could open our markets to developing


nations and perhaps support our farmers in different ways. I think


our farmers would have severe concerns and we would have do wonder


whether some developing nations have the same welfare standards as ours.


I entirely agree and support him on the first point he made. On the


second point, will he agree with me that there are many people in this


House it whilst wishing the very best for us, worry that the sort of


deals and transactions will take a very long time to fulfil,


particularly in the case of farmers and there is a great danger of limbo


land. That does worry me. This is obviously mean morning as I wanted


to remain. It strikes me as bizarre that we have given up extraordinary


influence over our market of 500 million people. I see a former Trade


Minister who is going to correct me. I would ask him whether he was


concerned when we appeared to be going to stay in the EU, about the


terms of the agreement with America or Canada? Is your only concerned


when it feeds his remaining and morning tendencies? I didn't receive


any representations for my farmers about the impact of TTIP on their


proposals. I was concerned about the French putting in cultural


protections which concerned me. But I felt we were getting close to a


free trade agreement thanks to the negotiating power of the European


union. I give way. I wonder if the logical extension of the argument is


that we should withdraw from the World Trade Organisation? Is it for


example fear that textile workers of Leicester were exposed to the


textiles industry in China which is largely meant a transfer of that


industry to that country? It will be difficult to negotiate free-trade.


It is an unhelpful argument because it doesn't take us very far for me


to put that argument. It's more therapy on my part because I feel so


frustrated. Part of the reason I feel so frustrated is the whole town


of the debate since the referendum has been so awful and unpleasant and


we are forgetting that 48% of the country voted to stay in the EU. And


the inability to build a consensus about the way forward. The remain


part of this House and the country has by and large accepted that this


is a clear and decisive referendum result which will take us out of the


EU. We want to work constructively to make that happen, despite my


earlier remarks, and what we urging from all sides is a realistic


assessment of how difficult this is going to be to work together in the


national interest. I shall give way briefly. He has been very generous


with his time. I agree with his point about trying to reach an area


of consensus for the whole country. Is he concerned, as I am, about


international trade and the issue of protectionism of other countries, as


my constituents have experienced with the change of leadership in


Nigeria, where they brought a list of imports that they were no longer


going to accept on a whim, which cut off all existing trade with UK


companies, including one in my constituency that was exporting to


Nigeria? And the dangers that presents to us as a country going


forward? I'm grateful for that example which reinforces my belief


that these free-trade deals are not going to be as easy to negotiate as


possible. What I'm really saying is there is a great deal of anxiety on


the people who voted to remain. There is a realisation we are not


going to wave a magic wand. I give way.


I just want to cheer my honourable friend up. I apologise because I


might have inadvertently failed to invite him to meet the special trade


commissioners who visited Parliament on Monday. The Mexican trade


Commissioner explained to us that there is a danger that Nafta might


need a major renegotiation on under President Trump and we were talking


about the need to get the substance right. Sounded like it was going to


take a terribly long time, but they think it could be concluded by


October 20 18. So the experience of actual trade negotiators who have


negotiated these agreements... First of all, I am going to visit my and's


constituency in April, so we can discuss this at length as I turn


this Leave association into a Remain Association. The chap who has become


flavour of the month because of his Lord of trade deals was at school


with me, which automatically makes him a dangerous member of the


liberal metropolitan elite! So it is important that we are aware that one


of the great Brexiteer champions is a member of the dangerous liberal


metropolitan elite, talking of which, my very old friend and former


BBC presenter, I will take an intervention from him. Villa would


the the ayes to the right -- the right honourable gentleman agree


that we would be caught between a rock and a hard place if our farmers


lower their standards to compete with American imports in a


free-trade? There is a danger that the standards are then too low for


the foodstuffs to be admitted to the European Union. It is a difficult


list to be. This is one of the many factors. But I have really indulged


the patience of the House with my wisecracks and I want to talk about


the main issue, which is actually very serious and it directly affects


my constituency. This is the withdrawal from Euratom. My


honourable friend the member for Henley, who is no longer in his


place but intervened earlier, if the member responsible for the Kalam


centre for fusion energy. This is where the main research into nuclear


fusion, the holy grail of sustainable energy, is taking place.


In 2014, we signed an almost 300 million euros contract to run what


is known as the joint European site until 2018 and we are now


negotiating to take that programme forward. That joint European site is


based in Oxfordshire and accounts for a quarter of the European fusion


programme budget. Of course, there was the money, not just coming from


the joint European company. For example, a project in France still


provides financial support for British projects. For example, 400


million euros worth of remote handling equipment awarded to the UK


AEA in Oxfordshire. Coming out of Euratom presents a series of


difficult issues for us. We would want to maintain our access to


nuclear technologies. Road -- removing the requirement for the UK


to comply with Euratom safety regimes would cause further delays


and costs to the nuclear new-build programme which I know my honourable


friend may speak about shortly. Although I am actually unhappy that


this bill takes us out of Euratom and I was also unhappy with the way


there was no warning, I must say that I am grateful to ministers,


some of whom are sitting on the front bench during this debate, for


the way they have reacted to this issue. I have been able to have


discussions with ministers from both the Brexit department and the


department for business. I am extremely grateful to the science


minister, who has personally met with the chief executive and to the


Secretary of State four bays, who has also spoken to the chief


executive. I am also delighted that the honourable friend for Hereford


is also due to meet with Kalam and every effort is being made to ensure


that at an all staff meeting tomorrow, proper reassurances are


given. On that point, does he feel that all these conversations he has


had our equal to the 300 million European subsidy to Oxfordshire? As


far as I understand it, that subsidy is not going away at the science


minister, early after the referendum, guaranteed science


funding up to 2020. I am sure the going forward, we will find some way


to be a member of Euratom and to benefit polymer because British and


European scientists working there are vital this project. It is


welcome to hear that ministers have been so heavily engaged with my


honourable friend following the concerns he raised in the second


reading debate on this matter. Does he agree that Euratom is so closely


linked with the whole European Union that it would be difficult for the


UK to continue to be a member of Euratom while leaving the European


Union? If my honourable friend will forgive me, I will answer by saying


that if the government's position. I also I understand that the


government feels that if there is any doubt at all that could expose


this bill to further legal challenge, they should act to


minimise that challenge. I would also say that I will reiterate that


I cannot fault ministers for their response since I raised this issue


in second reading in terms of engaging personally with me and also


engaging with Culham. I don't know whether I am walking into a point of


order quagmire, but I hope ministers will, as soon as they are able to


Tom publish a document that would take us forward and explain the


strategy for taking forward Euratom. The key point to get across is that


there is no attempt by this government to walk away from Euratom


because somehow, there is a disagreement with the principle of


Euratom's existence or the work that Euratom does. Although it sounds


rather trite when talking about peoples futures, this is a technical


withdrawal issue and I have been incredibly impressed by the energy


of ministers in engaging with this issue. I have had a constituent who


is an employee of the national nuclear laboratory getting in touch


with me because he's so concerned that an exit from Euratom would


impair his ability to collaborate with leading scientists and


engineers across Europe, and that would be to the judgment of science


and technology in this country. Does the honourable member agree with


that? The honourable lady makes exactly the point about why people


are concerned. But as I hope I have clear, it is also clear to me, I am


full of terrible puns here, but ministers are putting in a great


deal of energy into ensuring that our technical withdrawal from


Euratom, the implications are minimised and we can restore de


facto our membership in coming months. Has the honourable member


considered the possibility that if this bill passes unamended, his


point of influence will pass with it? It may have been better to have


something in writing in the bill, as opposed to accepting all these warm


words, cups of tea and assurances. I hear what the right honourable


gentleman says, but having known the Secretary of State for business and


shared many a warm cup of tea with him, I can assure him that I accept


his warm words and I expect him to be in his post for a number of years


in order to take forward this. I wonder if my right honourable friend


has considered the alternative situation, or if he is at all


concerned about Euratom given that in the last funding round, Euratom


have to fight very hard to maintain its funding, a position it is


unlikely to be able to maintain in the future, and the fact that the


largest single contributor, the Germans, have decided to phase out


the nucleus of a programme altogether. Is he not concerned that


over the next couple of decades, continued membership of Euratom


might expose us to diminishing research funding rather than giving


us the opportunity to partner bilaterally with other countries, as


we do already with India and South Korea, exposing ourselves to wider


pool of research? My honourable friend makes an point. In answering


you, I may slightly contradict my earlier rant, because although I


have concerns that our exit from the European Union could damage British


science, I have to set as well that scientists in my constituency have


pointed out that there is a danger that we had become too inward


looking in terms of only seeking European collaboration. Whatever


people think of other issues, China has become a much more important


player in terms of scientific research. So there may be a silver


money to withdraw from Euratom and he is right to point out that


securing funding for nuclear fusion is no easy task, because in some


respects, nuclear fusion is always the gold at the end of the rainbow.


Nevertheless, it is important research and I 100% support its not


just in general, but also in the impact on my constituency. Mr


Howarth, I have taken so long that Mrs Lang has turned into Mr Howarth


and having made a gentle jibe earlier at the honourable lady from


the Scottish National Party, I see that I have taken up an inordinate


amount of time of the House, so I will sit down, but I would simply


reiterate that I stand. Where behind it uses and is living in our


country. Please don't keep banging on about how easy free trade is


going to be, and please secure as far as possible our nuclear


relationships. Order. I have now to announce the result of today's seven


deferred divisions. Bear with me. In respect of the question relating to


trade unions and education, the ayes with three to seven and the noes


worth less, so the ayes habit. -- the eyes have it. In respect of the


question relating to trade unions and health, the ayes were three to


three, the noes were 263, so the ayes habit. In respect of the


question relating to trade unions and border security, the ayes were


three to three, the noes were 263, so the ayes habit. In respect of the


question relating to trade unions and fire, the ayes were three to


three, the noes were 262, so the ayes habit. In respect of the


question relating to trade union political funds, the ayes were three


to two, the noes were to Fab four, so the ayes habit. Finally, in


respect of the question relating to the comprehensive economic trade


agreement between the EU and Canada, the ayes were 409, the noes were one


to six, so the ayes have it, the ayes habit. It is a pleasure to


speak with you in the chair. I don't want to go on too long, but I have


nine amendments in my name which are selected today. I am not going to


speak to all of them, but just to say that I agree strongly with what


the honourable member for Wantage said and the concerns expressed


about the implications of leaving Euratom. One of the amendments I


have relates to that issue, which is amendment 31. He also talked about


implications of the decision to leave the European Union for British


citizens overseas. I have to declare an interest. I am the honorary


president of Labour international, which represents the interests of


Labour Party members who live in other countries, many of whom were


able to vote in the referendum. But those living in the European Union


longer than 15 years, even though many of them still have close


connections to this country, did not have a vote in the referendum. It


was a disgrace, but we are not dealing with the issue in this


debate. I wish to place on record the concerns and messages that I


have been sent by people living in other EU countries who remain very


worried about their access to health care, their access to educational


services, their access to support within the communities where they


live, whether in Spain, France, Bulgaria, we saw many other places.


Is, this issue should have been resolved already. By the government


has chosen to use them as a bargaining chip. Frankly, that is


unacceptable. I'm happy to give way. Thank you. Does he not also accept,


and I myself have raised this issue, about the importance of securing the


rights of EU citizens living here. I've had assurances from the Prime


Minister this will be top of her lowest. Does he not also accept in


good faith the fact that this issue could be easily resolved if the EU


itself actually reciprocated our intention of guaranteeing those


rights? This issue could be put to the side very quickly if they could


guarantee the rights of British citizens living in the EU. The


negotiation will start after the triggering of Article 50. The


reality is that the British Government could have provided


reassurance to British families in this country, perhaps with one


British parent and one French parent, with children born in this


country, uncertain about long-term futures because one of the members


of the family retains citizenship and nationality of another EU


country. That frankly should be resolved in the interests of those


families in this country today and not delayed until negotiation. In


our own interests as a country of value, a country of high morals, a


country that does justice and fairness by our people, we should do


something about this. I need to make progress.


I think the honourable member is indicating that he does not wish to


give way. I'm sure at some point he might signal if he wants to give


way. I was referring to my nine amendments. Two of them are minor


and drafted amendments, but one says that we should notify by 31 March


2017. I was surprised there was no date in this bill, given that the


commitment by the Prime Minister was to trigger by 31 March. I would have


thought that everyone on the government benches should be


prepared to support such an amendment, given that it is entirely


in line with what the Prime Minister herself has said. But for some


reason it doesn't seem to be acceptable to have this in the Bill.


I don't know why. Perhaps a minister could explain later. There is also


the question of the Euroton amendment which I referred to and


amendment number 30 which refers to the European defence agency. Defence


cooperation within the EU is vital. There are a large number of major


defence projects which have a component arrangement, whereby parts


come from one country, are assembled in another and there is a


collaborative arrangement. We've known about this for many years.


Frankly, the British defence industry alone is unable to compete


without being involved internationally. Some companies have


gone offshore, in the sense they have moved across the Atlantic. And


other countries are joint collaborative arrangements in this


country. A French country is very much a British defence manufacturer


now. On the other side, we know there are many reasons why, if we


are to be competitive as a defence industry, providing the jobs for


tens of thousands of highly skilled people in this country, we have got


to make sure we keep that defence industrial base. And that will only


be possible by joint collaboration, otherwise European manufacturers


will be swept aside from the United States or from other parts of the


world. We've seen that already with the way in which industries have


shifted to Asia. Anybody who wants to see the whole manufacturing


process of motor vehicle has to go to South Korea where they have the


pressing of the steel, the paint shops, the engine plants and the


fitting out of vehicles. In the 1960s, I visited Ford in Dagenham. I


was struck by the noise and the smell of paint. I was 17. I had


never been in a place like it. At that point, I realised that making


cars was a very large, massive, complex process. The only time I saw


plays like that subsequently was when I went to hire Di motors in


Korea, where I saw the sheets of steel to be press. The Ford plant in


Dagenham now, or you can see is men in white coats adjusting things,


lots of robots and diesel engines. That's the contrast. This is


something we need to think about for the future. If we leave, when we


leave the European Union, we have to make sure our manufacturing industry


and the defence sector is maintained and strengthened. I want take too


many interventions because unconscious other people wish to


speak. He's making an interesting point. Would he accept that our


membership of the EU has seen the transfer of industries from the UK


to eastern Europe and other parts of the EU, not least Cadburys.


Globalisation and the expansion of the wealth of the world led by


regional trading blocs like the European Union has led to a


significant change in the types of industries that are located in


particular countries. Hundreds of millions of people have been taken


out of poverty because of the industrialisation process in China.


And the same thing is happening in Vietnam, in the Philippines, in


India. Globalisation is affecting everyone. He refers to eastern


Europe. Yes, the days when the polluting tribally cars were made in


the GDR and the days when Skoda vehicles were regarded as a joke


have gone. There is no high quality manufacturing in many countries


throughout Europe. Of those companies often have integrated


supply chains, which is why Ford is at Dagenham make diesel engines for


cars which are also manufactured in Belgium and Spain and other European


countries. This is the nature of modern capitalism. It is the nature


of the global world that we live in. And the danger of us leaving the EU


is that we may actually make those industries in this country less


successful than they would otherwise have been and 410,000 is brash and


put tens of thousands of jobs at risk. I will give way it once more,


then I will make progress. I have some good news for him. Courtesy of


us leaving the EU, sterling has fallen and manufacturing in this


country is having a field day, as he can see from export orders and


factory output orders. Does he agree it has been a boon to manufacturing


industries in the North? Sterling has fallen as a result, foreign


holidays are more expensive, Marmite is more expensive, chocolate bars


are getting smaller, there are all kinds of consequences. I will make


some progress. I refer to my nine amendments. Number 34 relates to the


Common foreign and Security policy. I have to say, the European Union


does not do enough on defence. It needs to do far more, particularly


given, as president disc -- president Donald Tusk pointed out,


threats from outside the EU, Daesh terrorism, Russia and its


territorial grabs in eastern Europe, and the uncertainties from the other


President Donald, Donald Trump, and what might happen to the future of


Nato. We need to recognise that Britain with France is the backbone


of the European pillar of Nato. And the cooperation on defence policy


which we have established so far needs to be sustained, whether or


not we are in the European Union. It would be very foolish if in the


leaving the EU we weaken the defence cooperation arrangements that date


back to the Sam Maher low agreement with France or the cooperation that


we have which is limited but nevertheless important on common


peacekeeping missions and security and policing issues with our


European Union partners. I believe that is something we would make a


big contribution and some people have said it could be used as an


asset in the bargaining process. I think that's the wrong approach


because regardless of what happens to agriculture, regardless of what


happens on financial contributions, it is in our national defence and


security interest to have excellent relations with our French


neighbours, our Dutch neighbours, German neighbours, on defence and


security of this country. If we did the opposite, we would be cutting


off our nose to spite our face and that is not very sensible. I give


way. He is making an excellent speech. Would you not agree that in


fact we should go further. The opportunity is now for a con Federal


project. When we strengthen cooperation on science,


international development and climate change. The Prime Minister


says we might be leaving the EU but not Europe. Let's see the plan for


strengthening relationships across our whole area of work across the


continent. He makes an excellent point and I hope he gets the chance


to enlarge on that later. I also have another couple of amendments.


The honourable member for the SNP, the Member for Edinburgh South West,


referred to my amendment 29. I also have amendment 35. The both refer to


Gibraltar. Anybody who has seen, as I have, the attempts occasionally by


the authorities in Madrid to cause trouble in Gibraltar will now that


at a few moments notice, suddenly the border between Gibraltar and


Spain has got hundreds of vehicles. Dozens of people queueing to go in.


As the special police sent down from Madrid impose a rigorous check on


everyone going in. A few hours later, there is no queue. And then


it can come back again. Between ten and 14,000 people living in southern


Spain, in Andalusia, each day go across the border to work in


Gibraltar. Gibraltar has about 32,000 people, as far as I


understand. Many of those children. Of the population of Gibraltar as a


whole, there is an economic base now in Gibraltar which cannot be


sustained simply by employing residents of Gibraltar. The also


don't have enough land to house the number of workers that they need.


Solely dependent on 10,000 or more daily workers going across to work


in Gibraltar. It's about 40% of the total workforce within the Gibraltar


economy. I give way. The honourable gentleman made an


important point about Gibraltar. Going back to the member for Wantage


whose book just before, he said he was afraid that amendment would mess


up the bill. I fail to see what the addition of clause 193 after


consultation with the government of Gibraltar, how could mess up the


bill. This is a sensible amendment that the whole House should support.


The honourable member must be a mind reader, because I was going to come


on to that point. The government, when they proposed their Referendum


Bill in 2015 after the general election, did not initially have a


wording that relates to Gibraltar. That only came in because of the


strenuous efforts of a number of Conservative backbenchers including


my neighbour, the member for Romford, who is very active in the


British Overseas Territories all-party parliamentary group. And


other conservative and Labour MPs and other party MPs who were


concerned that Gibraltar had to be referred to in the bill that


Gibraltar's citizens, even though are not part of the UK, they are


part of the European Union and have votes in the European Parliament


elections and should also have a vote in the referendum. It is


therefore strange that although the bill to set up the referendum which


has triggered this process for leaving the European Union mentions


explicitly Gibraltar, the rights of Gibraltarians and votes for


Gibraltarians, there is no reference in the bill to trigger Article 50


two Gibraltar at all. I understand that after the referendum, a day


after the referendum in June the 24th, 2015, the then Foreign


Minister of Spain, who was fortunately no longer Foreign


Minister at this moment and things went smoother as a result, made some


very inflammatory remarks about how Spain would have Gibraltar because


of the referendum result. As the honourable member said, the chief


minister of Gibraltar, when he spoke before the committee that was


looking at this issue, the Brexit committee, on the 25th of January,


made clear that Gibraltar had not just voted overwhelmingly to remain,


but it had also voted by an even bigger margin, by 98% as opposed to


93%, to be British. And in terms of the self-determination of the people


of Gibraltar, who come culturally from people who have Spanish,


Italian, Moroccan, Genoese and British blood and many other roots,


they are British and remained British. That is not in question.


But as I said earlier, the day-to-day relationship between


Gibraltar and Spain can, at the whim of some official or some politician


in Madrid, be made difficult. The people who suffer most from this


other people in the trade unions and workers in the Andalusia region who


are working in Gibraltar. I have met them here in the House of Commons.


Interestingly, there are Socialist led authorities in the south of


Spain. They want excellent relations between Andalusia and Gibraltar. But


while we are in the EU, our government can ensure that no funny


business can go on as regards what might come out of some draft


document produced somewhere relating to waters or environmental issues or


maybe flights and trade matters. As soon as we leave the EU, we no


longer have the ability to argue that case and block it if a


particular government in Madrid decides to upping the ante to make


life more difficult. So because of the importance of this issue, it is


surely necessary to the people of Gibraltar are, through the elected


government of Gibraltar, aware of these matters as we leave the EU.


Therefore, to be consistent with what the bill said when we voted in


this House to have a referendum, Gibraltar should also be mentioned


on the face of the bill. That is why I will be pressing for amendment 29


to be put to a vote. I hope members on all sides, particularly those


with an interest in British Overseas Territories and who believe strongly


that Gibraltar should remain British, will consult their


consciences and in voting history and support such an amendment. And


finally... I just want to say that it is


unfortunate that there are so many members wishing to speak and so


little time for them. This whole process has been a disgrace. The


three days set aside for the committee stage is a disgrace. There


has clearly been a stitch up, as my honourable friend says, which John


Smith certainly did not agree to when I first came into this House in


1992. I had many happy hours and late nights debating the Maastricht


Treaty. And I can recall, because some of the faces on the other side


are still there, taking interventions from seven or eight


members on the other side late at night on that bill. On that bill, we


had six or seven times as much in committee. Eight times as much, my


friend says, that we are having today. Does that not make it even


more important that the House of Lords takes its time to consider


everything that we have not been able to discuss here, and indeed,


much of what we have? I don't wish to give advice to the other place.


You can get into trouble if you do that. But I would simply say that it


is fortunate for democracy and accountability that there is an


opportunity for the other place to give more considered time to these


matters, and they are not subjected to programme motions in the same way


that we are. I therefore get back to the point of this debate. I am


grateful for the opportunity to speak on these amendments. I will be


supporting new clause two and a number of other amendments,


particularly amendment 20 nine. It is a great pleasure to follow the


honourable gentleman for Ilford South and in particular to hear the


intervention from the right honourable gentleman four until.


That is the spirit -- Hodge Hill. Firstly, I offer my apologies to you


to the previous incumbent of the chair for having the temerity to


challenge the opening of the debate. We have seen the infallibility of


the chair in this House on display over the last few days and I was


mistaken to think that I should join the chorus of doubts about the


decisions of the chair. I have listened to the debate over the last


two and a half days both within the chamber and sitting in my office


watching the television. Sadly, what I have heard broadly is a three-day


ovulation by those who voted to remain about what is to come. We


seem to have lost track of the fact that we are trying to make law in


the chamber rather than debate the merits of the decision taken on the


23rd of June. That seems to have resulted in some very poor drafting


of amendments. A huge number of amendments has been put this very


simple bill and I wanted to expand upon my of order earlier to explain


why I can't support the majority of them. First of all, in the


amendments put down in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and


various other members of the Labour Party, it has become a shopping list


of things they would like the Prime Minister to take into account. There


are some missions that honourable members have included, but there are


some things they have missed. They seem to have forgotten to compel the


Prime Minister to breathe or keep her eyes open. When you add up the


list of demands of things that the Prime Minister has to take into


account during her negotiations with our European friends, her scope is


becoming extremely limited if we were to pass any of these


amendments. My main opposition to them is their vagueness. If you


take, for instance, the primary clause that we are debating today,


there are lots of things in this clause which gave me reason for


thought. For instance, when it is the Prime Minister shall give an


undertaking, an undertaking to whom? Visit to her husband, to the House?


Very imprecise. It also doesn't say in what form that undertaking should


be, on the back of an envelope? We are writing legislation in this


House and it is incumbent upon us to be precise. The reason that I raised


the point of order about these amendments being vague and therefore


out of order is because that is what they are. The honourable member


previously made a point of order that these amendments were out of


order and was ruled out of order. Now he is speaking about this


previous point of order and how it is in order, so I just suggest that


he is out of order! Order. The honourable member's point of order,


although very entertaining, was not a point of order. Thank you. To be


honest, the previous incumbent of the chair corrected me and said the


point of order I was raising is a matter for debate in the chamber and


not a point of order. That is therefore what I am attempting to


do. The honourable gentleman said he couldn't support the vast majority


of amendments. Therefore, he presumably can support some of them.


Could he support amendment 29? It is a Labour led amendment supported by


the SNP. After consultation with the government of Gibraltar, will he


stand with the people of Gibraltar or will he not? I did say the


majority. I should have said until I have managed to read them all. I


confess that even my enormous stamina started to wane at one in


the morning as I was two thirds of the way through. I haven't had a


look at them all, which is why I am sitting here and listening. I will


have to mull over that decision over the next few hours. We don't know


what the form of the undertaking is. We don't know to whom it is be made


and critically, we don't know what the sanctions. If the Prime Minister


says no, what do we do? Are we to send her to the tower? Is she not to


participate in the elections? My reading of the new clause is that


the sanction is that until she has given the undertaking, she can't


proceed in giving notice under Article 50, which I suspect is the


intention of those tabling the new clause. These new clause are


festooned with mechanisms for her not giving notice under article 50,


which is the purpose of the bill. The right honourable gentleman is, I


think, being generous. As far as I can see, the huge number of


amendments is designed purely to waste time and delay and to give


political signals rather than try and achieve anything. The honourable


member for Ilford South complained about the programme motion. If the


opponents of this bill had actually focused on three or four critical


things they wanted to see changed in the bill, they might have made


progress instead of throwing a lot of flak in the air and causing the


problem that they have. My honourable friend is making a lot of


good points, but isn't vagueness is a virtue in this case so far as the


amendments are concerned, since it would turn a simple 1-page bill into


an absolute monster that will be subject to a lawyers' beanfeast at


every turn, thus kicking this into the long grass?


I agree, the word I would use is implicitly. With simplicity comes


clarity and the Prime Minister needs clarity as she goes into these


negotiations about the motivation of this house and the support this


house for her. The other reason I object to this clause is that it


abrogates the Prime Minister's decisions, which will rightly become


the decision of this house in the future, so subsection D of the


clause says that she should now regard to maintaining all existing


social, economic, consumer and workers' right. Apart from that, I


am not sure what my social or economic rights are. They are


undefined as part of this Bill. Those will presumably become


decisions of this house in future. If there are to be any changes to


those rights as undefined as they are, that will have to be the


subject of primary legislation in this house. I wish that before he


makes his points he would inform himself because we already know from


the White Paper that the government has said that plenty of this


legislation will be able to be reformed in secondary legislation,


in other words, we will not have Parliamentary scrutiny for it. He


might not care about his own economic, social rights, but we, on


this side, have constituents who do care and we trying to do our job


properly. It is a pity he is not. As I understand it, even secondary


legislation can be forced onto debates on the floor of this house


by the opposition parties. They can put down motions, we can have back


bench debates. In fact, there are ways that the opposition can strike


down secondary legislation. So, it is not that we are without powers in


this situation. To help the honourable lady, it is very clear in


the White Paper, which is an undertaking that the Prime Minister


has already given to the House, that any significant policy changes will


be underpinned by primary legislation, which means the House


can have a full opportunity to debate them. It is clear that


secondary legislation under the reform Bill is only going to be used


to address deficiencies, which will relate to the fact that we will not


be able to use EU instituted. That is very clear and preserve the


rights and privileges of this how is -- house. If I could move on to New


Clause 77. Is he not puzzled why members like the member for Brighton


and others now want to be able to vote on and control legislation for


which the last 40 years they have been content to having no vote, no


vote before negotiations, no boats during negotiations, no vote at the


end of negotiations and no power, even if every member of this house


voted against an EU regulation to destroy it. My right honourable


friend points out the fundamental power that sits at the base of all


the Maynard. At clause 77 we have reached complete nonsense. Complete


nonsense. New Clause 77 in the name of the Right Honourable member for


Nottingham East seeks to, says, that the Prime Minister should in


negotiating an agreement in accordance of Article 50, the


Minister must have regard to the desirability of attaining full


participation in the making of all rules affecting trade, goods and


services in the European Union. That effectively means remaining members


of the commission, members of Parliament and members the Council


of ministers. Otherwise, not leaving the EU. This is, as far as I can


see, complete nonsense. Yet again and legislation and bad law. If I


could point out New Clause 179. He should maybe just take another


little work at the New Clause 77. It is actually making the point about


the need for the UK to retain its role around the table as a rule


maker in our tariff arrangements to deal with trade. There are some


serious issues to do with our position in the customs union and so


forth and I was suggesting that Britain should retain its role


around the table. Does he disagree? No, that is not what it says. If he


reads the members backs planetary statement to his amendments, on


agreeing all rules affecting trade in goods and services in the


European Union. In my understanding, those rules are made by the


commission, agreed by the Council of ministers, so we would have to stay


around all the those tables. I was wondering if he could explain to me


whether acts of Parliament, should we pass, whether that act of


Parliament would be binding on the other 27 members. Therefore will we


be forced to accept our presence at their tables, despite having left


the organisation. Does he think this is in every way fallacious to even


debated? He quite rightly points out that even if we do, there is nothing


to be done. We would have to turn our back and ask the member for


Nottingham East what we are supposed to do next if we are not allowed, if


we cannot manage to comply with his amendment. Every is nonsense. I know


the right honourable member has ambitions within his party but if


he's going to produce stuff like that he's going to have to do a


little bit better. Again, New Clause 179, protecting current levels of


funding. In negotiating and including an agreement in accordance


with Article 50 of the Treaty of European Union, ministers of the


Crown must have regard to the desirability of protecting current


funding from the European Union. Funding to whom? All funding? The


funding that we send? Funding that comes back funding to other


countries? The vagueness is extraordinary. New Clause 183,


membership of the single market including EU wide reform. Subsection


eight, provisions governing the free movements of people. This will allow


for controls over the movement of people... It is all very vague.


Maintain the highest possible level of European integration. What is the


highest possible level of integration? Perhaps it means


membership? I think he is being a little bit uncharitable. I think he


seems to be assuming that these are without purpose but as he recently


pointed out, they have a purpose and stop were they to be passed, it


would be impossible for the government to proceed with Article


50. It would be in the courts for certainly years, possibly decades


and maybe even centuries. It a conscious policy that is being


followed of great intelligence. He underestimated the ingenuity of


opposition. He may well be right. Perhaps... Whilst he is perfectly


entitled to debate the quality or other right of any amendments and


new clauses, I think needs to acknowledge that the chair has


deemed all of them to be within the scope, so whatever the purpose or


otherwise behind them, they are within the scope of the Bill. I am


grateful to you for that direction but the previous incumbent of your


chair said to me that was a matter for debate on the floor of this


house and we were allowed to debate the merits. That is exactly what I


have just said. I come to the end of migration on that particular point.


I have a couple of other points. -- my oration. A number of these are


nonsensical and cannot be supported. I can see there are substantive ones


in this pot pouri that has been thrown in the air to create


difficulties for the beautiful stop at the moment I am not able to


support the vast majority of them and albeit I haven't read every


single one yet. Two more points I want to make. First of all, just to


reiterate what I said earlier about your Tom -- Euratom and the nuclear


industry. The nuclear industry is incredibly important to the UK and


the rest of the world. UK this serious nuclear power. There is deep


research going on here into the future of weekly fusion and fission.


But we have to recognise things are changing in the EU landscape around


nuclear research and be aware of those decisions and take into


account while the -- we consider our relationship with Euratom. There is


only one serious other nuclear power in the EU, which is France. Germany


has withdrawn and tell Jim is the only one -- and Belgian has a number


of reactors but France has over 50. We have a bilateral nuclear


collaboration agreement with France. I would ask him to think again about


his comment. Sheffield is the heart of research into nuclear technology


in this country, so I think he ought to think again about that statement.


I am not quite sure what she thinks I said but I said there were two


serious nuclear powers in the EU at the moment, the UK and France. We


are fortunate in having a bilateral agreement signed in 2010 with the


French to deepen and widen our collaboration on nuclear research.


Our exit from Euratom, which looks like it will happen, will not affect


that at all. Those bilateral relations will continue in that


research and in particular, our participation in the reactor project


in southern France can continue, not least because there are a number of


non-union-macro members in that fantastic materials testing


programme at the moment. -- non-EU members. Will he share my concern,


the threat to our nuclear industry in the UK is not this Bill, it is


actually the fact that the Leader of the Opposition wants to shut down


the nuclear industry in this country, including Sellafield. A


very good point, which will no doubt be taken into account in the good


voters of Copeland in the next couple of weeks. I am that he


mentioned the voters of Copeland because they will be looking at the


nuclear workers whose pensions are under impact from his government but


on the issue of Euratom, that agreement he talks about between


France and Britain comes under the umbrella of this agency and the


people who know, the academics and the industry want us to maintain


that link. I am sure that he is right legally. It may well be for


ministers, but I understand it is an intergovernmental treaty between the


two countries and will not necessarily be affected. But of


course we also have bilateral treaties with the other countries,


so we just before Christmas signed an agreement with the Japanese do


deepen our research into civil nuclear programme. With India we


have a bilateral arrangement, with South Korea we have a bilateral


arrangement and this is really where the innovations are happening in


nuclear research and so the idea that somehow by coming out of


Euratom we are going to close ourselves off to the rest of the


world is answering. If anything, it might free us to do more work across


the rest of the globe in developing what I think is going to be the


future of British energy. Finally, I want to say a word on EU National.


As members will know, I have expressed my doubts about the


government's approach to EU nationals in the last few months. I


am of the belief that we should give those people some reassurance, but I


am willing to give the Prime Minister the space she needs in a


negotiation to go and make sure she can secure the fate of the shisha


National 's overseas and on the Asus -- the fate of British nationals.


Requiring legislation, I will be voting with the government on this


motion, as I know a lot of other people will be for exactly the same


reason and I would encourage members of the House to look at these


amendments, decide whether they are actually good, whether we are


putting good, enforceable, possible law into the statue book. Most of


the ones I have seen we are not, and I hope they vote for the government.


It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship this afternoon. I


listened very carefully to the contribution from the member for


North West Hampshire. It seems to me that part of what our job is in the


House of Commons is to raise questions about such an important


decision affecting all of our lives and through the use of amendments


and other means to open up the discussion and seeks answers run the


government of the day and I think that is absolutely important to the


debates we will have today and going forward, because it does seem to be


that so far whilst the government has refused on numerous occasions to


accept some of the contributions from my own front bench and others,


they have then gone away and thought about and thought maybe is something


in that. If anything comes out of today's debate, we are pushing at


the government, who do not want to accept some of the amendments, some


of which I have put my name to, but part of the debate in this public


arena is to hold the government to account and make them look again at


some of the important subjects that are being raised today but have also


been raised before. I have no doubt will also be raised over the next


two years and beyond. I would also just like to add that I was


absolutely delighted to read in the Brexit White Paper that the Prime


Minister who set one of her 12 objectives is to enhance employees'


rights and maintained EU protections, on page 32 the grass


suggests we will have 14 weeks statutory paid holiday. -- the graph


suggests we will have 14 weeks' statutory paid holiday. As we go


forward, I know my honourable friend's amendments in terms of


protecting workers' rights will not be drawn but we will take heart from


that and maybe hold her to account on that particular issue.


I want to challenge the government on a number of aspects of this


process, and I do so as an MP who believes the decision is made.


Whatever the falsehoods, the exaggerations or the unpleasantness


that surfaced in the referendum, none of them invalidate the UK's


decision. It is important that the House makes clear that we respect


the outcome of the 23rd of June. And I do commend my own front bench's


approach on this, particularly the work of my honourable friend the


member for Holborn and St Pancras. It is thanks to his efforts that the


government has accepted a number of Labour's demands, the demand for a


vote in this House prior to withdraw has been a concession. The


government has accepted that that vote has to include our future


proposed relationship with the EU after we leave. The government has


accepted that the vote must take place on a draft withdrawal


agreement and we will do so before the European Council decide on that


draft agreement. I think in accepting these Labour arguments,


the government is asserting that the UK Parliament does not play second


fiddle to our colleagues in the EU Parliament and that this House


asserts some measure of control over the withdrawal process. It is


important that this is not seen as a debate just for the Prime Minister


and her ministers, but through this House, everyone is able to air their


views and influence the discussion. In the prime minister's Lancaster


house speech, she pledged that the UK will keep workers' rights after


Brexit. She also pledged to avoid a cliff edge by seeking a period of


stability after we leave while our trading arrangements with the EU


single market gets sorted out. She pledged to seek good access to the


single market with no extra tariffs or bureaucracy. I know I may have


disagreements on my own side about what the shape of that should look


like, but none of us should be in any doubt about the importance of


our trade arrangements not only in terms of what we export outwards,


but what comes into this country. But it is not just about our cities,


it is about places like Doncaster and many of the towns and


communities around the country who know that this is vital for their


jobs. When I did a survey of my constituents after the referendum


campaign, I asked them, what do you think should be the priority is?


Jobs and investment came first. Tackling immigration came second,


and there was discussion about this in yesterday's debate, the ?350


million a week that was apparently going to come back to the NHS. I am


not sure what I can do about that, but on the first two, they will get


my attention. I believe we do have to look at freedom of movement, and


I have said for many years that immigration has not been attended to


by my party or other parties in the way it should. But the Prime


Minister has said she wants the negotiations to guarantee that EU


workers currently living here can stay. I agree with that. For many of


my constituents, they have particular issues about freedom of


movement that they want to receive attention in a way they have not.


But on this particular issue around EU nationals, the Prime Minister


could lead her MPs through the lobbies today and vote to guarantee


those rights for EU nationals working here. She could make clear,


as others have said, that they will not be used as a bargaining chip and


it would end their uncertainty today. Likewise, we also want to


safeguard the rights for Brits living in Europe, but I believe that


by adopting a positive approach today, we make it more likely that


Brits living in the EU will be treated fairly. The honourable lady


touches on EU nationals. Something has been misunderstood a few times


in this House in the call that Europe should make this the first.


Which European state should make the move first, Bulgaria, Sweden,


Portugal? The reality is that the UK are making the moves on Brexit and


the UK should be leading and showing goodwill toward citizens of all


European countries. We are talking about the UK and 27 other countries.


I think the tone of this debate as we all move forward is crucial to


how we work together in this country for the best deal, but also the


perceptions of us in the other 27 member states. Something will have


to be done about EU nationals living here and Brits living in the other


27 member states. That is a fact. There will have to be a deal. And I


know there is support from those who voted both Remain and Leave on the


government benches, but they cannot understand why the Prime Minister


isn't making a decision on this that makes that clear. I also want us to


be open to EU students, and I understand the concerns of parts of


our country, maybe not so much London, but certainly in Scotland


and in the north of England, where we continue to see a brain drain


away from our communities that is hindering our ability to grow our


economies. This is an area that my constituents don't have much of a


problem with. I also know that my constituents don't have much of a


problem with having the ability to travel for their two weeks in the


sun maybe once a year. That will be important for Doncaster Sheffield


airport in my constituency. But they do know that we have to think about


rules to manage migration, because the net benefits of migration, of


which there are many, have not been equally shared across the country.


In some towns, the rate of change in terms of people coming, particularly


from Eastern Europe, has had both an economic and social effect, with no


blame accorded to those individuals, on some of our towns. When a factory


suddenly finds, in what seems like a matter of weeks or overnight, that


the number of people in that factory from Eastern Europe outweigh the


numbers from the local community, you can't deny that this creates


worries for people. And along with that, pressures on services. But I


do believe this as well. The debate on migration over the next few years


cannot just be about migration in relation to the European Union. Over


the last seven years, the Tory government's policies on immigration


have failed. I have to say, the Secretary of State honours leaving


the European Union is not in his seat, but I remember when he caused


a by-election on the back of getting ID cards. I supported IQ -- ID cards


then and today, because I think with the difficulties of identity fraud


crime and needing to know who should have access to what, they could have


been part of the solution to some of the problems in the intervening time


since he called that by-election. The honourable lady has reiterated


her colleague on the front bench, the honourable member the Sheffield


Central's abandonment of her party's long-standing principle commitment


to free movement. How, then, given that she wishes to have this place


control migration in the future, does she think that would have been


possible, had we not been leaving the European Union? I think


actually, we failed under successive governments to raise this issue and


influence how the change should happen. I believe that across the


other 27 member states, there are discussions around what freedom of


movement has meant for them. Unfortunately, we haven't attended


to that issue for very long and in not doing so, when David Cameron


then tried to negotiate, he was doing it in a way that was not


leaving enough time to broaden the scope for real reform. Therefore, we


hurtled into a referendum which was of his choosing on the date that he


set, and the consequences are there for us all to see. My right


honourable friend is making a brilliant and honest speech. It was


clear to me as Immigration Minister in 2007 that there could have been a


consensus for free movement reform across Europe, and if only we had


pursued it then when we were in government, and if only the party


opposite had pursued it with care when they came into office in 2010,


they wouldn't have been forced to offer a bargain basement deal to the


British people when the Prime Minister's back was against the


wall. It has occurred to me sitting here that some people who are


intervening and are still hoping to speak will not have anything left to


say by the time they get around to speak. Caroline Flint. I agree with


my colleague's statement. It is about as having a more grown-up


discussion about the mistakes that have been made and how we navigate


this uncharted territory for all of us, and a bit of humbleness in that


would not go amiss. I will give way. The right honourable lady is making


a very serious speech. Would she agree with me that as part of that


grown-up discussion on both sides of the House, we also need to have the


courage to explain that migration of many kinds is beneficial to our


economy and our society in a way I don't think we have done's eye


totally agree with that, but maybe part of the problem is that we have


often talked a lot about that, to the exclusion of sometimes talking


about where communities were feeling that it wasn't working for them. And


that is part of the problem. We all know in politics how much of the


white noise we create actually get through to the public. And if we


avoid some of those important, and let's remember, every region in


England outside of London voted to leave, then we do that at our peril.


For me, the biggest danger is if we let the extremes of the far right


occupied ground to influence this debate, which none of us would want.


I would like to make some progress. I will talk to some of the


amendments which are important for both sides of this House. Whether or


not they are past night, we will see. But I hope the content within


them and some of the contributions being made will be taken seriously


by the ministers and be given some attention. It is in the UK's


interest to present itself not as a nation retreating from what has been


a successful international union, but a nation which remains


determined to uphold the best values of that union. New clause seven


speaks to that. Committing the government in advance of any


negotiations to having regard to legislation shared across the EU to


prevent and tackle tax avoidance and tax evasion, which is something I


have given consideration to over the last few years. Last September, the


UK press itself at the forefront of the international debate on public


country by country reporting. Our stance should be the biggest and


best international companies with any substantial presence in the UK


should have no fear of openness, no fear of publishing where they do


business and where they pay taxes. In that spirit, the UK should pledge


ahead of negotiations to comply with the European Union code of conduct


on business taxation. And we should do so not because we are required


to, but because we want to uphold those standards, in many ways the


ones we have been dealing on -- leading on from the UK. It's


unfortunate that some of the comments of the Prime Minister


seemed to relegate some of the positive efforts that have been made


to tackle tax evasion and to tackle some of the issues around tax


havens. It would be a huge step backwards if we were seen to step


away from something important in which we could be leading the world.


New clause 100 is a modest clause around equality and women's rights,


yet I believe it's a values the core of what modern Britain should be


about. It is modest because it simply asks that during


negotiations, the government has regard to the public interest in


maintaining employment rights, cooperation against trafficking,


domestic violence and female genital mutilation. It suggests a cross


departmental working group to recommend appropriate legislation on


equality and access to justice. I think the values are clear. It asked


only for what we already have, but it asks this House to address the


things we value and make clear that none of this will be sacrificed


during our departure from EU membership. New clause 163 is about


consultation with the English regions. We have heard a lot about


the importance of a meaningful dialogue with the devolved


administrations and I endorse that the bridge. I have argued that the


best way forward is for the government to acknowledge that we


are in uncharted waters. As such, the Prime Minister should be seeking


cross-party agreement and should be having meetings regularly with other


party leaders. I shouldn't need to remind her that her government was


arguing to remain and that the decision of the British people on


the 23rd of June was an instruction to all of us in this House not just


to the Prime Minister and a handful of ministers. In the spirit of that,


I urge the government to adopt new clause 163 and to consult with the


English regions. The Yorkshire MP, I hope I do not need to remind


ministers that Yorkshire has a population greater than Scotland. We


have a gross value added economic output of ?110 billion in 2015, just


17 billion less than Scotland. So I urge the government not to overlook


the English regions. Finally, I do urge ministers to


clarify our future relationship with the economic atomic energy


community, which has been mentioned already in the debate today. We all


made this is such an important sector and it should grow in the UK,


not only for the nuclear energy we create here, but as the potential


export market it provides as well. New Clause 100 5,192 and Amendment


89 or seek to ensure that the government takes this very seriously


and I do believe that there is an onus on ministers to urgently


clarify whether upon leaving the EU, the UK will forfeit membership of


Euratom and in the meantime I would put to the Minister the request from


the nuclear industry Association to convene a specific working group to


ensure there are no omissions made in the framing of regulations to


replace the provisions of this treaty. She is right to press the


Minister because there is the talk about this that we have to do it and


it is important. The industry wants this working party, it wants


government to give clear assurances and I appeal, through you, that the


Minister do this tonight. I absolutely agree. As a remaining


campaign, I saw many positive benefits from our membership of the


European Union. I am determined this House will respect the referendum


outcome and seek the best of my constituents from our numeration


ship. Some in the Prime Minister's Cabinet talks as though Brexit will


be nothing but boundless prosperity. -- from our new relationship. The


reality is likely to be something in between prosperity and doom. After a


marriage we are getting a divorce and journalist process we need to


leave behind the pulsed promises and distortions -- the false promises


and distortions of the campaign. We need to replace the rhetoric with


honest discussion and honest endeavour to achieve the best


outcomes for the past our country has chosen. That is how we rebuild


trust. This is how we secure a deal, which most leave and remain voters


can accept. That is the way I will be approaching the discussions in


the future. In rising to support the government, I would like to consider


New Clause to, amendments five and 42 and New Clause 185 relating to


Euratom and I have to say I am enormously encouraged by today's


debate, not least because I take New Clause two as an endorsement of the


government's position and so I am looking forward to a third reading


of a full lobby. I would like to make a point that on this last point


about maintaining existing social economic consumer and workers'


rights, this is particular something the Prime Minister is committed to


and I am looking forward to the Prime Minister's succeeding as soon


as possible and guaranteeing reciprocal rights. I think we know


from the press why this has not been done already, it is because the


German Chancellor and various figures within the EU institutions


have stood in the Prime Minister's way. We know from what we have read


in the press that the Prime Minister has a clear framework for


guaranteeing rights and she has sought to deliver it but it is


because our negotiating partners have insisted on no negotiation


before notification that she had not made progress. I have full


confidence in the Prime Minister's intent and the solidity of her work


and I will vote with the government. Of course, in looking at the


character of all of these amendments, this enormous sheet of


amendments, I think several honourable members have indicated


why this has been done and it is undoubtedly I think to draw within


the jurisdiction of the courts a wide range of issues, which would be


required in the courts for ever putting off the inevitable day of


leaving. I think it is far better to be strong, confident and committed


an act with a constructive and positive spirit to take us out of


the EU. So, with that in mind, having dramatically curtailed my


remarks on that clause in light of what other colleagues have said, I


would like to turn to Euratom. What is it? It is a legal framework of


civil nuclear power generation, radioactive waste and arrangements


for nuclear safeguards and movement in trade and deeply materials. The


first point I would like to address is the suggestion -- and nuclear


materials. The past point I would like to suggest is this issue was


not on the ballot paper. If we put all of the issues that were of


concern on the ballot paper it would have been a very long ballot paper


indeed. The question was perfectly adequate on the ballot paper and if


there is a fault to be laid at anyone's door that Euratom was not


discussed in the course of the campaign, then that bolt lies with


the pro EU campaign for not raising the issue in the course of the


referendum. -- then that fault lies. It is a separate treaty, Euratom,


signed in 1957 by the founding members of the you're EU. In 1972


PCA act gives effect to the treaty in addition to giving effect to the


EEC treaty. If we turn to the European Amendment act, that makes


it clear that any act includes reference to the European atomic


energy community and so it absolutely clear that in conferring


on my Right Honourable Friend the Prime Minister the power to notify


that we are leaving the European Union, she has the power to take us


out of Euratom. That then leaves a couple of questions. The first


question, I'm going to continue, the first question is is the government


seized the importance of this issue of nuclear safeguards. I think it is


an extremely important issue for the House. Now, my own experience of


working with nuclear systems, I admit, is distant and limited. I


joined the RAF at a time when we still had tactical nuclear weapons


and I was trained to certify aircraft nuclear weapons and at the


core installation is and I have to say it was neither rocket science


nor was it magic, it was about using a very fine component to the highest


quality standards and from my own experience of that work I would say


that I have great confidence in British scientists and British


engineers to do everything that is necessary to ensure that safeguards


continue. I particularly observe that we continue to be part of


Euratom throughout the negotiation period. Since Euratom brings into


effect in Europe the provisions made by the International atomic energy


authority, we can expect that since we continue to be members of that


agency and Daugherty, we can expect -- of that agency and authority. We


can expect to continue as members of the agency and put in place


appropriate arrangements as we move forward. In addition to the points


made by my honourable friend for North West Hampshire I point out


that the Trident system is evidence that we can collaborate on nuclear


issues. It focuses the mind like nothing else and so I know that my


honourable and Right Honourable Friend is on the front bench are


very much the stop the issues and will prioritise this point and for I


go further I will give way to stop he said it was not on the ballot


paper, he is right, it wasn't even mentioned by the government until


they produced the Bill and that, you know, if it was such a big and


obvious issue, why did the government when the EU referendum


Bill was going through, and other opportunities, not raise this point?


Secondly, he talks about the two years. Is he suggesting that if in


two years there is no agreement, then there should be a transitional


period, otherwise we lose our place in the world? I thought I had


explained carefully but I will say again, the European Union Amendment


act 2008, section 3.2, makes it clear that any act that refers to


the European Union refers to your terms. So it was included in the


scope of the referendum. The government is going to make it a


priority, as I have just explained at some length. I have absolute


confidence that the front bench is appraised of the importance of the


issue and will take it streaming it seriously. We will continue as


members of the agency and I would expect that if no deal were reached,


which I think is highly unlikely, that under the auspices of the


International agency we would continue to maintain UK safety.


Would he give way -- would he agree that much like Europol, Euratom is


one of those organisations, which the other EU member states that are


members of it would have absolutely no interest in excluding the UK,


therefore a quick agreement is very likely? This is a potent point. A


thousand page report went through section by section all of the areas


where we currently cooperate with nation state through the European


Union agencies, explaining how in each case there were other bases on


which we could cooperate internationally. As I point in


relation to Europol, in a globalised world of fast air travel, the


Internet making everywhere seconds away, what we need a global


corporation on judicial and security matters and to escape the mindset,


the only way to do it is through the hierarchal arrangements of the


European Union. I hope you get might I dilate on this, I remember in 2010


being told by members all around this House, particularly the Liberal


Democrat leader at the time, that politics was changing and we were


seeing a realignment of politics and I thought of the words of Ronald


Reagan about the choice between up to the maximum of pure freedom or


down to totalitarianism and I think that is the real station politics


going on. -- reorientation of politics going on. The old


hierarchal structures which were necessary for communication in the


absence of the Internet are no longer appropriate for the world


which we live. It is quite right that we should seek all of these


issues to be cooperating on a global basis under new arrangements, which


allow us to act without greater agility. To return to the point...


You talk about international and global relations. If it is so


straightforward, why is the nuclear industry Association saying that


given the international nature of the nuclear industry the biggest


risk in leaving Euratom is the interruption to normal trade in the


European Union and further overseas? I'm grateful. I think earlier in a


straightforward intervention my Right Honourable Friend devastated a


lot of these arguments why making the point that the jet project as


that column do not want these amendments, which is not to say that


people do not want collaboration, of course be all what collaboration,


but the question today is whether or not these amendments should be made


and the clear answer coming to us is that these amendments should not be


made. I think the point that he makes is absolutely clear. The


management at Callum D1 tell cooperate. They want a much larger


project. -- do want to cooperate. But they don't want us to make


amendments to the Bill, but discussed with ministers. Returning


to that point of ministers, I think it might assist the House in


emphasising how committed to this issue the government is, to just


return to my Right Honourable Friend the Secretary of State's comments on


second Reading where he pointed out that the Bill also gives the prime


ministers the power to start the process to leave Euratom. He


explained it is because although Euratom was established in a treaty


separate from the EU agreement treaties, uses the same institutions


as the European Union, including the European Court of Justice. He went


on in response of ten to an intervention that Euratom passes the


regulation, rules and supervision from the International atomic energy


agency, of which we are still a member. When we come to negotiate


with the European Union on this matter, he said, if it is not


possible to come to a conclusion involving some sort of relationship


with Euratom, we will no doubt be able to reach one with the


international atomic energy agency. So, the point I am making is that


this is a crucial issue. The government understands it is a


crucial issue. We know that we are fully committed to making progress


on nuclear matters in research, development and in the meditation in


safety, in collaborating globally, but we do need to leave Euratom as


we leave European Union. The government is entitled to do so and


it is quite right that the Bill should stand as it is as a


government move forward. In conclusion, I will certainly be


voting for this Bill as it stands. I think the amendments are


unnecessary, count productive and I certainly commend all ministers work


on Euratom. Jess the lips. -- Jess Phillips. I will be as brief as


possible! I wish to speak the physically to New Clause 100, which


is principally in the name of the right honourable member for


Camberwell and Peckham. I would like to start by saying her grateful both


she and I are at the 64 colleagues who have added their name in support


of this amendment and it shows the real strength of feeling and concern


in this House on this issue. It has already been mentioned by some of my


honourable friend and I will go into it in more detail.


Despite assurances from ministers, very real concerns remain about the


potential impact of leaving the European Union on women's rights and


the Goverment's intentions of defending them. This amendment


addresses this in four key areas. The first one is employment rights


and protections derived from EU legislation. We know that the rights


of part-time workers, pregnant women at work and those also the many


different cases we have seen about the right to equal pay and equal


value that was derived in the EU. The Goverment's white paper argues


that we have more generous maternity leave systems here in the UK than is


required at EU level, and that is absolutely correct. Yes, we do, and


what I would say to the people in this room about why we have that is


you are very, very welcome, because it was the Labour government that


introduced those things, and it was specifically a mention to the right


honourable member for Camberwell and packed, and the other women who sit


in this chamber with me today, who fought for those rights. --


Camberwell and Peckham. And at the moment we have something that is


better than the EU. However, we have seen through many different global


changes in the past few weeks, I was going to say few months, but the


last few days, how easily women's rights can be undone when our global


alliances begin to fail. I will give way. I'm grateful to her for giving


way and pay tribute to the role that Labour has played in those rights.


Would she agree that the EU takes us further in some respects, for


example equal pay for equal value? And would she agree that the real


risk is that when that legislation becomes UK domestic legislation it


can be an picked through secondary legislation, and what we have heard


is absolutely no reassurance on that. Absolutely, I thank the


honourable lady for her intervention and I agree entirely. I will come on


to talk about what the EU has done in advance of UK legislation. But we


don't need to look any further. I will give way perhaps shortly. The


issue around pregnancy discrimination and the rise of that


in the past number of years because of changes in legislation in the UK


have meant that women's rights or definitely something that needs to


be protected and considered, and I would be very happy if we had an


external protection. We know that the rights for part-time workers are


crucial for women. This includes pension rights and equal treatment


of work for part-time workers. 75% of part-time workers are women. 42%


of women work part-time. Equal pay for it for value is crucial for


women. This derives from the speech therapist case brought to the


European Court of Justice in 1993. This is a very live issue, as


low-paid women in the UK are today fighting equal value pay cases


against Asda and threading council. Today, still, this is still going


on. -- Reading Council. The Goverment's white paper states. Back


my favourite moment in the paper was it said that it does have


sovereignty but it hasn't always felt like it. It reminded me of my


children saying, I know you love him more than me but it hasn't always


felt like it! Anyway, back to women's rights. You know, we really


made Britain look like a petulant key. The Government is committed to


strengthening the rights when it is the right choice for UK workers. And


will continue to seek out opportunities to enhance protection.


That's what it says. So what exactly does the right choice mean? When do


the ministers in front of me think that strengthening workers' rights


is not the right choice? I would also like to remind the House that


it is not long since we had the red tape challenge. The equality act


2010 was included in the red tape challenge in 2012. So the very


writes that the Government now say they are committed to they have


previously considered to be red tape. It was the Prime Minister


herself who was the Minister who led that review. When ministers wonder


why we doubt the sincerity of their commitment, let me say this. I have


read the white paper very carefully. Much like the team we have on the


Government front benches going out into the European Union and being


part of the Brexit team, there isn't a single mention of a woman, nor


equality, anywhere in the white paper.


I think that it's time for a woman's voice to fill the chamber for the


day, because I believe the honourable gentleman has had his


say. When they are at the negotiating, when the people got


back I absolutely well! CHEERING


I thank my honourable friend for giving way. She is making a


characteristically powerful and passionate and humorous speech with


it as well. But I wanted to also just ask her this point, which is,


would it not be fair to also approach the wording in the white


paper with some caution, bearing in mind that prominently yous


campaigners in the Leave campaign argued that leaving the EU could be


an opportunity to cut economic, social and employment protections?


Absolutely. Unfortunately I think that my honourable friend makes a


very important point. The thing that we might get that the Leave campaign


said is a squashing of workers' rights, the thing that we won't get


is ?350 million going into the NHS. If only there was a level of


consistency in what we had been promised. When the ministers on the


front bench opposite, I will give way... I thank her for giving way.


And I have always enjoyed working on the women and it is like committee,


which has been incredibly harmonious, listening to both men's


and women's voices. I do understand the spirit of the clause 100. But I


find it faintly objectionable, and I know who I'm addressing this too, in


that phraseology, about Women and Equalities Committee when it comes


to our Prime Minister. Because I think she has led the way in terms


of FGM, in terms of making sure that workers in particular areas have


better life chances, about coercive control. So can I implore the


honourable lady to believe that members on this I do believe in the


rights of both male and female, and particularly our Prime Minister? I


have absolutely no doubt that people from the opposition benches care


about women's rights. I mean, I have lots of evidence to suggest that


some of them absolutely don't and need frankly a good strong talking


to buy your Prime Minister. Sorry, our Prime Minister! However, I have


no doubts, and I'm going to, to the sections in this bill that or about


violence against women, so I am going to come onto. It is because I


know how committed the Prime Minister has been to this issue,


like FGM and cross-border issues to do with FGM, but I cannot understand


why she would whip our party not to wrote for this. -- not to vote for.


So, anyway. I'll get back to where I was. What I want to know is that


when the ministers opposite on the front bench are at the negotiating


table, when they are thinking about the competitiveness of the UK


economy, what will be high on their list? Will it be how to ensure we


protect and enhance workers' rights all women's rights? I mean, I beat


you got your answer for you there. -- I think you've got to answer. Or


will it be to undercut our EU neighbours by becoming in the


regulation, low tax economy? The esteem Justice said, some of the


basic rights that we now take for granted, I can see and maternity


rights, part-time workers' rights, equal pay for equal value, or all at


risk of the UK becomes a mirror chelation economy. Is that the true


destination of these negotiations -- a low regulation. Can the Minister


give us an assurance that powers in the Great Britain you'll bill, great


or otherwise, -- the Great Repeal Bill. They will not be used to


remove any employment rights at a later date? Will part-time workers'


rights and the rights of pregnant women at work and women fighting for


equal pay really be safe with them whatever happens? I will give way. I


thank the honourable lady for giving way. She is making a passionate


case. But I would put to her that the case that she is making is not


really for this Bill, it is for the Great Repeal Bill, which is to come


in due course. I mean, I can recognise the honourable gentleman's


assertions, however, you know, I am being asked to vote on something


tonight. And I want to be certain that people like me and people who


live in my constituency are going to be protected. And that the moment I


don't feel confident... No. LAUGHTER


Just to clarify, just to clarify, I think there are lots of people


waiting, and I think the honourable gentleman, who is trying to


intervene, has stood on his feet for many, many, many minutes during this


debate. And I think that it's time for somebody else to have a chance.


So, the second thing that worries me, concerns me, which we have


touched on slightly, is the violence against women and girls. The


amendment would not only defend women's rights at work but also


protect those women escaping domestic violence, FGM, all those


trafficked across the EU and the UK. My constituency in Birmingham, where


in 2010, up to 900 schoolgirls across the city were at risk of FGM.


And the key risk ages being at birth, 4-6 -year-olds, and during


puberty. One in five children in Birmingham will have experienced or


seen domestic violence before they reach adult hood. At least 300


forced marriages of women take place in the West Midlands every year. I


ask the Minister, when they are at the negotiating table, who will be


in their minds? Will it be the women in my constituency experiencing FGM


or those fleeing their violent partners and using the services such


as Birmingham and Solihull women's aid? In Birmingham, in the last


year, for women have been murdered -- four women have been murdered,


with another woman found dead last week in my constituency. The


European protection order ensures that women who have suffered


domestic violence are protected from the perpetrators. If they travel or


move away anywhere in the EU. Predictions about the consequences


of Brexit for policing measures will depend on the outcome of these


negotiations. On the 4th of February 2016, history was made in


Hammersmith specialist domestic abuse court when the first European


protection order was imposed in England and Wales. In this case, the


survivor had returned to Sweden, a restraining order was granted as


well as a European protection order, so that she is protected in the UK


as well since we'd. It is generally accepted that the UK will want to


continue with certain parts of EU policing, justice and cooperation.


And it is essential but UK countries feel that we can opt into the EPO


agreement following Brexit. The white paper, it notably neglects to


mention any of this. It doesn't mention FGM, it doesn't mention


domestic violence, or indeed violence against women in areas that


the Government will continue to work with European partners on. In the


area of crime, and the organised crime and terrorism are mentioned.


And whilst those are incredibly serious things, nobody in this


building will be able to find anywhere in the country as many of


their constituencies is of my constituents affected by those two


crimes as by this one. So, will ending violence against women and


girls, in girls, in particular in the UK is continued use of the


European protection order by a priority for the Government during a


Bafta the Brexit negotiations? Finally, finally,... This new clause


would also achieve what the Prime Minister says she wants to achieve,


to make the UK there are place. And not only protect workers' rights but


build on them. -- a fairer place. There many gaps in our equalities


legislation, and a need to make our legislative framework fit for the


21st-century. Section 14 and section 106 have been there since the Act


was passed in 2010 but have not been commenced. Will the Minister today


undertake to a cross departmental, and, I put myself on the line and


say cross party, I will, and help, working group to assess and make


recommendations to develop legislation on equality and access


to justice? My challenge to the Government is, will you take the


opportunity that Brexit gives us and make the UK the best place to be a


woman? Or will it be one of the worst?


I am grateful to follow her as she speaks with much passion about her


cause and argues for women with much persuasion. I just want to gently


point out that only once the Labour Party can claim to have collected


its second lady as Prime Minister can they really preached to this


side of the House on how to support women. I rise to speak against the


entirety of the amendments tabled by the opposition members but in


particular those included in this grouping, in particular the


references made to trade with the European Union and the rest of the


world contained in New Clause 2, 11, 77 and 181 and I have two key


points. The first one is on trade and I am struck by the premise of


the wording of New Clause 181 on trade agreements calling for the


government to have regard to the value of UK membership of the EU


customs union in maintaining tariff and barrier free trade with the EU.


That amendment gets it wrong for several reasons. It is totally


misguided and a misreading of what the British people voted for on June


23 because if we are to have regard to the value of the customs union we


are missing the point because whereas the call to have regard to


the costs of UK membership of the EU customs union? Why does this


amendment not include a reference to the reasons why Britain must leave


the customs union and what we stand to gain? For, there is simply no


point to Brexit, there is no meaning to the result of the referendum, if


we do not leave the EU customs union. Where is the acknowledgement


of the restrictions and the cost of the common commercial policy,


inherent to our membership of the EU customs union? This amendment and


all those containing this reference to trade is one-sided, prejudged and


lacks any objectivity or impartiality. Where is the reference


or any acknowledgement of the simple fact that if Britain is to set her


own rules on trade policy, if she is to forge new and dynamic agreements


with the rest of the world, then she can only do that if she leaves the


EU customs union. Where is the reference to the gains that we stand


to make by striking new trade deals with the rest of the world?


Estimated as 50% increase in global world product over 15 years by the


special Trade Commission. I am concerned that there is no impact


assessment of the damaging effect of the EU's trade agreements on


developing countries. The assessment of the common external tariff, which


binds members of the customs union. EU protectionism has meant... The


comments are also in the member of three other select committee chairs.


Is she aware of the evidence given to the home affairs select committee


by a series of courts and so on that said that the additional delays that


they could be subject to give their goods coming in from the EU were


instead subject to the kinds of customs checks as from outside EU


could be subject to delays of between one and three days? The


honourable lady needs to do her research before she makes points


like that because if she were to have attended the meeting I was at


with experience trade associated just two days ago, who are part of


these Trade Commission 's, experienced trade negotiators who


have led trade deals on behalf of other countries, they say that the


rules are open, they are already part of free trade agreements around


the world and the costs of those, and that we actually, and the


problems she highlights have been blown out of proportion when it


comes to the reality of what we stand to gain from leaving the


customs union. I am grateful to my honourable friend and she has made


her point with typical force. I just say to her that at our last Treasury


Select Committee meeting we heard from the Director of customs that


HMRC and they pointed out repeatedly that where customs clearances are


currently all quiet, 96% of customs clearance takes place electronically


within a few seconds and requires no intervention. -- where customs


clearances are currently acquired. That is exactly the point that is


needing to be made. Where is the amendment referencing the point that


my friend makes? She is making a typically powerful... My honourable


friend is making a particularly powerful pace and as a member of


Parliament representing Dover where this is going to have the greatest


impact, I have put together a group to look at this and it is perfectly


possible to build a frictionless border using the latest technology.


They want it to fail, we will make it succeed. I could not agree more


with the point he has made. She says that we are not interested in an


unbiased assessment but had she been here yesterday, she would have seen


New Clause 43 seeking an impact assessment, which would have been


evenhanded. Why can't she read the amendment before she makes a wild


assertion? These amendments we can all see are an attempt to pull the


wool over the British people's eyes. They are an attempt to fob us all


off and I will have nothing to do with them. EU protectionism has


meant that farmers and workers in developing countries are at a


disadvantage when exporting into the EU because of the common external


tariff. Why should British consumers be denied products such as cheaper


sugar, wheat or tomatoes from developing nations in order to


protect less efficient farmers in northern Europe is the mark that is


the effect of the common external tariff. That is the effect on our


consumers because of our membership of the EU customs union. Does she


share the same concerns as me that it is quite perverse that we


actually with our external tariff impoverished third World nations and


then hand money over in order to raise their standards? The absurdity


of the situation and the current position is astonishing and we will


only be able to remedy that injustice I leaving the customs


union, by taking control of our trade policy and by having trade


deals which are on a fairer basis and being real promoters of fair


trade for those countries. I went because I have taken quite a few and


I want to make progress. The cost has been estimated at an increase of


about ?500 per household because of the damaging effect of the common


commercial policy by virtue of the customs union. Mr Chairman, these


amendments do not reflect the absurdity of the current position


either. The absurdity that British companies like JCB are unable to


sell their machinery tariff free from India to the UK, no more than


Tata from India to the UK. Ever since 1973, Britain's trade has


pivoted from global the European, or negotiated on our behalf IDE you


trade Commissioner -- or negotiated on our half by the you trade


Commissioner. The influence to be re-gained by Britain's resumption at


his own seat -- of its own seat at the World Trade Organisation. Why


they're not reference that trade policy has wrecked the ports of


glass go and Liverpool, on the wrong side of the country. -- the ports of


Glasgow and Liverpool. That is an example of the one-sided prejudice


and misguided nature of all of these amendments. These amendments fail to


point out that in 2015, the UK's trade deficit on trade in goods and


services with the EU was ?69 billion while the surplus with non-EU


countries was ?30 billion. Why is there not an amendment asking for an


impact assessment of the games we face from trading more widely and


more freely with the rest of the world? Building on our surplus with


countries outside the EU? These amendments do not reflect the fact


that return is losing out now because of our membership of the


customs union and they miss that that we have more to gain by


leaving. I will tell you why these amendments omit all of these salient


features. It is because the opposition members do not want to be


honest about the fact that the EU still does not have any agreement


with major nations like Brazil, the USA or China, that we have more to


gain from increasing our exports with the rest of the world and by


remaining a member of the customs union. My second and last point is


very briefly on EU National 's and I want to note for the record that I


consider that the Prime Minister's position is appropriate in the


circumstances, she will be guaranteeing the position of the


approximate 3.5 million EU nationals and their position as soon as


possible once negotiations have started. I want to make sure that


this issue is put into perspective. Out of the 3.5 million EU national


currently residing in the UK, approximately 64% of them already


have the right to stay here. 8% of them are children of an EU national


parent and therefore they have a right to reside here and 12% of the


3.5 million people will have accrued there five years permanent residency


by 2018, which means that 84% of the 3.5 million EU nationals already


have a secure immigration status in this country. We are actually


talking about a minority of people. I was involved in a cross-party


report... Let us be practical. We cannot deport convicted criminals.


The truth is that not a single EU National is ever going to be


deported. I agree wholeheartedly with that and that would be against


any ideas of natural justice, legitimate expectation and the rule


of law if we were to be going down that course of action. If that is


the case and we have a certainty around EU nationals, will she be


joining us to vote for New Clause 27 tonight? I will not be voting with


the opposition. I am very content with the government's current


position on EU nationals. I am very grateful to my honourable friend for


giving way. Does she share my concern and disappointment that


whereas all of the government's -- governments of the EU could have


sorted this issue out already, some have put a brake on it and refused


to do so and it is pressure that we should be putting on them to sort


this very important issue out, much, much earlier and actually outside


the Rive Gauche -- the renegotiation process? I agree and I see the


honourable member for Dorset and pulls that in the House and I recall


the letter he sent to Donald Tusk on this issue. She invites me to get to


my feet and was she not as disappointed as I was by the


response to that letter, which failed to grasp, this could all have


been resolved before Christmas. On the 15th of December the answer was


no, it should have been yes. Thanks to the wisdom of the current


position that we must safeguard the rights of UK nationals abroad before


any other movement on this issue is made. I was involved in a


cross-party study with the Think Tank BRITISH feature if the right


arm member for Birmingham Edgbaston and Thetford and Stratford and we


made suggestions to the government on how to regularise and practically


deal with the legal position of the 3.5 million EU nationals in this


country. There are particular issues that the government will need to


deal with the answer comes to dealing with this issue but for


example what should be the cut-off date? Our report recommended that


the date after which point new rules should apply should be the date that


Article 50 is triggered, at which point the debt amid expectation will


have arisen for new arrivals to this country -- at which point legitimate


expectation will have arisen. We think that strikes the best point


between pragmatism and fairness. Though the National already


qualifying for permanent residency by virtue of their five years'


residency in the UK be offered a permanent residence under the rules


as they currently stand. -- the EU National already qualifying. We also


recommend that those nationals who do not meet or will have not yet met


the criteria should be granted a transitional period of time


according to the old rules, which safeguards the legitimate


expectation to which they would be entitled.


And we also made recommendations on the practical ways in which the Home


Office could deal with the considerably higher level of


applications and paperwork. It will not only involve the Home Office


officials dealing with over 1 million cases, but we recommend that


the local authority nationality checking services should be given


first line responsibility for processing and approving


applications from permanent residency. Mr Chairman, in


conclusion, the majority of their constituents, you'll be pleased to


know, the majority of the constituents in Fareham voted to


leave the European Union. They chose to do that because they wanted to


re-empower themselves, they wanted to free up our country and they


wanted to take back control. These amendments, Mr Chairman, or an


attempt to pull the wool over their eyes. To fob off the Parliament,


because they simply aimed to delay and frustrate. I won't have anything


to do with these amendments, Mr Chairman, because they would be an


insult to my voters in Fareham, an insult to the British people, and a


dereliction of my duty as a representative in this place. Order,


order. I'm holding in my hand a list of members who wish to speak. It


stretches just about from here to Brussels! There are in fact 21


members who wish to participate. A degree of self restraint would be


helpful, both in terms of the length of speeches and interventions. A


number of honourable members in both sides of the House have spoken


before in the course of these three days. I'm going to try, because I


think it's only fair that we should, to give some preference to those who


have not been able to contribute at all. Caroline Lucas. Thank you very


much, Sir Roger. I'm pleased to be able to follow the honourable member


for Fareham, not least because I would like to disagree with her on a


number of points that she made. She won't find that surprising, I'm


sure. She said that she finds the Prime Minister's attitude to EU


nationals as appropriate. Can I tell her that I find it deeply


inappropriate, and so do the Uulu nationals themselves, who simply


want certainty when it comes to knowing about their future in this


country. Can I tell her that the Prime Minister's refusal to


guarantee that now, when she has the ability to do so, is cruel, and


frankly I think it is a rural as well. What we are talking about here


is people's lives. They are not simply commodities to be traded at


the convenience of someone had a bargain. The Prime Minister could


and should guarantee to people who have made their lives here in good


faith that of course they can stay here in the future. The idea that it


is appropriate to do otherwise I think is quite honestly


completely... Will she give way on that point? Is she aware as I am of


EU nationals in very senior positions in the UK, in UK


institutions, who are already leaving the country, and people who


are, EU nationals who are being interviewed for senior positions who


are now asking very searching questions about what does Brexit


mean for them and their families in the future? I thank him for his


intervention and completely agree. I was talking to the Vice-Chancellor


of one of the universities in my constituency, hearing about how,


already, some of the staff in that university wondering about their


future, wondering if it is worth staying or leaving, feeling as well


unwonted, this is after massive contributions made to our societies


and communities. That is why I think the attitude of this Government is


incredibly irresponsible. I want to make some progress, and I want to


talk in particular about my amendment 38, which is to do with


the environment. And I am so pleased that we have a few moments are


pleased to talk about the impact of Brexit on our wider environment and


on sustainability, because so many of us have been trying to raise this


for the huge amount of time, it is massively significant. I know that


the chairman of the evidence that we heard in the Environmental Audit


Committee about the environmental impacts of Brexit. It it is deeply


worrying. One area I would like to focus on is around the issues of


monitoring and in Forsman of environmental legislation once we


leave the EU. I would be very happy to give way to the chairman of the


Select Committee. Does she share my disappointment that the work done by


the Environmental Audit Committee, both on the benefits and the


potential risk of leaving the EU to the National in quiet, and on


chemicals legislation, which affects manufacturing, has not been able to


be shared with this committee stage due to lost my's filibuster by the


SNP. That's right, I'm not going to pick out any one particular party


because filibustering is an epidemic which affects this whole place and I


would love to see that trend. What I do want to talk about is precisely


the kind of evidence we heard in the Environmental Audit Committee. One


almost believes it is precisely because of the complexity that is


demonstrated by having evidence given to us about the environmental


impacts of Brexit, that is precisely what the other side don't want to


hear because it underlines to them that this Brexit processes not going


to be done and dusted in two years, the idea that we will have a whole


new trade agreement in two years is cloud cuckoo land, and anybody with


any knowledge of this issue would certainly be saying that. I'm going


to make a bit more progress. Because what I want to talk about in


particular is the fact that as many members of this House have noted


over the last few days, the protection is currently guaranteed


by our membership of the EU, whether an environment all workers' rights


or health and safety, rely on an established and robust system of


monitoring and enforcement provided by EU institutions and agencies.


Perhaps the most important part of that system has been precisely by


strong pressure to actively implement the law and to do so


within a specified timescale. An incentive to adhere to the law


arises from precisely the monitoring and enforcement role of the EU


agencies, the commission acting as the guardian of the law and


responding to legitimate complaints, the referral of serious breaches to


the European Court of Justice and was anxious that can follow,


including fines of many hundreds of millions of pounds. It is precisely


that enforcement Wagner is that we are going to lose as a result of


Brexit. Because although the Government talks about moving across


lots of this legislation... I will in a moment, in the Great Repeal


Bill, what doesn't get automatically transferred was by enforcement


processes and the agencies to actually make sure that this stuff


gets done. I give way. I'm grateful to her. She and I share an


enthusiasm to renewable energy, does she agree with me that one of the


protections that the EU also affords is the protection of the German


solar PV manufacturing sector, which is inflating prices for PBs sales in


the UK because the EU has put in place the minimum import price on


those sales from trying? It is a particular decision that I don't


support. -- from China. The idea that we would go down the road


leaving the EU with all the problems that is going to arise, the far


greater damage done to the environment of leaving the EU


because we don't agree with one or two decisions, that is the


definition of somebody throwing their toys out of the pram. It is


not a sensible way forward. Is she as concerned as I am that when we


leave the customs union, the birds and habitats directive, which


protects migrator Rhys Bishoo is, Britain's special wildlife, will


cease to apply in this country, affecting all environmental impact


assessments, and the air pollution standards, which are currently set


and enforced by the EU, could be downgraded? I absolutely share her


concerns, on the air pollution issue in particular we have seen very


recently that it was precisely the threat of EU sanctions that


eventually got this Government moving when it came to dealing with


their pollution, without the extra sanction of the EU level they simply


would not have taken the action that is necessary. That absolutely makes


my point. Thank you. The European chemicals agency has built up a


staff of over 600, and together with the EU directorate general for the


environment it has become the natural home of the chemical risk


assessment in Europe. Does the lady agree with me and share my concern


is that the UK does not have the resources, financial or human, to


create its own regulatory agency and chemicals? Well, I thank the


honourable member for his contribution, a fellow member of the


Environmental Audit Committee. He as I heard the evidence from experts


just this week about precisely the impact on our chemicals industry of


leaving the EU, of losing membership of the breach directive in


particular and all of the concerns that raises in terms of their simply


not being the capacity, the resourcing in this country to simply


step in and take that over. I thank her for giving way. Does she share


the concerns that our committee heard yesterday from the chemicals


industry that British manufacturers of chemicals could pay up to 300


million euros, and have already paid about 130 million euros, to register


chemicals with the rich database, with the chemicals agency, and that


those sub costs which have to be incurred by 2018 could be lost to UK


industry with a duplication of setting up a UK-based chemicals


agency? I thank her for the intervention. I don't know what I


have to say, I gave an indication that I wanted to try and get as many


members in as possible. There are a significant number of members who


have not spoken at all in three days of this debate. That is hard on some


people who have amendments tabled and still wish to speak. I really do


want to try and give if their crack at the whip to those who have not


spoken at all. Now, long interventions and long speeches do


not help that process. Caroline Lucas. Thank you, Sir Roger, and I


apologise, I just know that the chair of the Environmental Audit


Committee was trying for hours yesterday to make some of these very


points. I will agree with the points that she made and saying particular


that the impact on our chemicals industry has been massively


underestimated in terms of it being I think the second manufacturing


export that we have, the second-largest, when it comes to


manufacturing exports. 50% at least of it goes to the EU and the impact


will be massive. If the Government is serious in its ambition to leave


the murmured in a better condition than it foundered, ministers must


give detailed now on how that legislative system, the monitoring


and enforcement system, is going to be replaced. I think it is quite


astonishing that the Government once asked about for this bowl without


presenting any idea of what this complex, robust and unique system


might look like when we leave. In the evidence given by the RSPB to


our audit committee on this issue, they may be important point that the


European Court of Justice operates on a broader basis than the Supreme


Court in the UK, which must follow more narrow due process. It is


therefore possible that great swathes of environmental protections


once transferred over to UK so that you'd will in effect become


redundant due to the absence of those monitoring and enforcement


processes via the ECJ and the commission. Importantly, this loss


of an effective judicial system would come at a time when UK


regulators, tasked with monitoring compliance and environmental


legislation, have had their own budgets slashed. Defra has had her


-- just has a third of its staff, it has lost two thirds. And another in


pact will be that the Great Repeal Bill will not carry over at the


prudence from the European Court of Justice. So again, that means that


we look set to lose important case law, which will past 40 years has


proven effective in protecting the UK environment. I'm grateful for


giving way. Another risk that has been put forward is the loss of


access to the European Environment Agency, which brings expertise to


advancing environmental legislation. I thank her for her into Beijing,


and she is right. The agency -- for her intervention. We have have


access, and the honourable member for there thinks it's insulting to


be talking about this vitally important amendment really does


strike me as baffling. But this is not only an issue on law related


directly to our life and nature. The Goverment's push for an extreme


Brexit opens the way to changes to environmental policies related to


many things. All of which indirectly or directly impact the UK


biodiversity and our natural environment. So for all of those


reasons I think the amendments are trying to protect our environment


and seeking a guarantee of that protection before Article 50 is


triggered makes good sense. I will close in just 30 seconds but I do


want to say that I very much support in particular the new clause 100,


which the honourable lady from Birmingham somewhere spoke so


passionately and eloquently about. In recent weeks we've heard repeated


very welcome statements by Government ministers saying that


workers' rights, women's rights, will be protected. Well, if that is


the case, let's get it on the face of the Bill, let's be sure that this


will not be rolled back through secondary legislation.


Six minutes per person will allow nine more members to speak. A


pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I propose to sit down


at ten to. I think it's important we get as many people in as possible


and also that we give an example to the honourable member for Glasgow


North who sadly isn't in his seat to date. -- today. The honourable lady


for Wingfield was waiting so patiently yesterday. Good manners


are something we should never forget in this place. Even if the Scottish


Nationalist party are not always acquainted with those manners. Let


me just speak on clause two. My concern was, it doesn't include as a


priority, and I don't agree... It doesn't include as a priority that


we should leave the internal market. We should leave the internal market


had two key reasons. First of all, we cannot carry on writing out


checks for billions of pounds to Brussels. That was a clear


instruction from the referendum and it should be honoured. Secondly, as


my right honourable friend alluded to in her speech earlier, a very


principled, considered speech, we haven't done enough on the matter of


immigration and unchecked migration from Europe, freedom of movement as


it's called. It's a great concern to our constituents and it must end. It


cannot end unless we leave the internal market. Our priority is to


leave the internal market we can save our money and control our


borders. That is a difficult thing for the metropolitan elites of the


SNP and the metropolitan elites who run the Labour Party these days, who


are completely divorced from the regions of England and Wales and


elsewhere. How people feel. But they feel very deeply, very, very deeply


about controlling our borders and migration. They feel very deeply in


my own constituency of Dover. The second issue... I've been challenged


by saying I'm not a lever which is true. The decision is made, we need


to honour it and we need to implement it as quickly as possible


with a clean Brexit and a clean bill to do so. I give way. Thank you very


much and thank you to the gracious manner in which the honourable


gentleman has allowed me to intervene. They have claimed the


decision to leave the EU will take back control of our borders. The


greatest of respect, could he just gently and slowly explain to those


of us in Northern Ireland how you are going to take back control of


the border which stretches for 300 miles between the Republic of


Ireland and Northern Ireland, part of the UK, which will be coming out


of the UK. How do you retain control of that? A very important point, the


Common travel area must be maintained. We have a strong history


with Northern Ireland and the republic. The Prime Minister set


that out as a key priority for her. She brings me neatly to the next


question which is the issue of the customs union. Let me answer her


question... I give way. He's having said interventions asking how he


might do that. Let me give a suggestion. Because of the Common


travel area and the rights of Irish citizens in the UK which is also


reciprocal, it seems to me there is no need to have checks on people


movements across the border. The conversations we've had earlier


about the fact most customs checks can be done electronically, seems to


me we can maintain a soft border and the prosperity of both parts of the


island of Ireland perfectly properly when we leave the EU. I just want to


briefly in the last minute available to me, I can't take an


intervention... In the last minute I want to touch on the issue of the


customs union. It is clear in the decision that we want to enter trade


agreements are smack in the world that we must leave the union. The


party 's opposite save that would be a terrible disaster. As always they


hope it will be a complete disaster but on this side of the House, we've


been putting together industry groups to see how it can be done,


listen to what HMRC can do, listening to how we can construct a


frictionless border which will work for Britain and Europe. It's in the


interests of Britain and the European Union that we construct a


frictionless border. That's why I'm also in discussions with the


authorities in Calais because it is really important in by the interest


of Britain and France, Dover and Calais, and the UK and the European


Union, that we make sure it works. That's why we need to embrace the


electronic bills, misplaced check-in, audits in workplaces, and


treat the border as a tax point rather than a hard place with border


posts. That is the second answer to the honourable lady and her


question, that is how you make sure we can continue to have frictionless


trade, even if we have to leave the customs union. On that note, Sir


Roger, I will conclude my remarks so that others may speak. Sir Roger, I


rise to speak to the new clause 163 which is tabled in my name and seeks


to require the government to publish a strategy for properly consulting


with English regions, including those without directly elected


mayors. Sir Roger Gale as we get closer to the Prime Minister's


self-imposed 31st of March deadline for invoking Article 50, the


question I put to the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU European


Union, back on the 17th of January, still remains unanswered. To remind


the House, I asked him what discussions he has held with key


stakeholders in the north-east about the effects of leaving the single


market, given that 58% of our regions exports currently go to the


EU. I received an entirely unsatisfactory response to that


question. I do remain concerned the government has ruled out membership


of the single market, before negotiations have begun, and before


and without properly consulting with those parts of the country likely to


be most affected by this move. Even more concerning, despite the


publication of the government's white paper last week, we are still


no closer to knowing what role representatives from all regions of


England, including the north-east, will play in informing the


government's negotiation strategies and objectives. Instead, we've been


provided with an entirely meaningless statement, that says, in


seeking such a future we will look to secure the specific interests of


Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as those of all


parts of England. I give way. Would my honourable friend agree that


comments from members such as the honourable lady for Fareham about


the Port of Liverpool in my constituency having been in some


decline, is complete nonsense. It's doing more tonnage than it's ever


did, it's had an investment recently and people from the opposition don't


realise the good that the regions do and its economy. I'm pleased I took


that intervention, the honourable gentleman makes a very strong case


for by the government's we know best approach to the Brexit negotiations


isn't going to wash with the British public. Furthermore, the word region


appears in the white paper just four times, and three of those are in the


footnotes. The government does claim that around 150 stakeholder


engagement events have taken place to help inform the government's


understanding of the key issues. But I would be really interested to know


where, when and with whom those meetings have been held. What we


know, that in this House, the Secretary of State made the vague


commitment that we will get all the mayors of the North to have a


meeting in York. Of course, this can't happen until after the mayoral


elections in May Matt and I would also suggest that while I appreciate


the sentiment, it is wholly inadequate. What happens to those


regions like the north-east that won't have an elected mayor after


May, and would therefore be excluded from this meeting? Surely if the


English regions are to have a meaningful input into this process,


those discussions must start before May, given that the negotiations


with the EU will have already commenced, and given a two-year


timescale for achieving a deal that doesn't damage our jobs and our


economy. We are repeatedly told that Brexit is about taking back control.


We know that that means an unelected Prime Minister who sought every


means possible to avoid scrutiny of her approach, ploughing ahead with a


hard Brexit, regardless of the consequences for a different part of


the country. I'm not convinced that what people voted for, and I'm not


convinced this Whitehall knows best approach is going to get the best


deal for everybody up and down the country. Sir Roger, I believe the


anyway the government can secure the best possible deal for all regions,


but particularly I speak for the north-east, which have so much to


lose from a bad deal, is by properly engaging with those on the ground


about what we need. That is why I'm supporting new clause 168, which


would compel the government to make sure that this proper consultation


takes place. You'll be pleased to know I've never spoken more than


four minutes in this House, I have never had that opportunity and I


don't intend to start now! I agree with the intentions and emotions of


many of these amendments that forward. But I'm not supporting


them, simply because I don't want the Prime Minister's hands to be


tied throughout the negotiations. I campaigned fiercely to stay in the


EU, as I passionately believe it's in Britain's interests to do so, and


I haven't changed my mind. I with everything my right honourable


friend the member for Rushcliffe said last week. We will lose a


tremendous amount of influence and economic implications. There is one


difference between myself and him, I voted for the referendum and I have


to accept the result. It may have been advisory but the public voted


to come out of the EU and I respect that. I will be monitoring the


negotiations closely. I'm pleased with the reassurance yesterday there


will be a vote in good time for the final deal. It maybe we will get a


very good deal, which is why I can't support new clause two. I feel it is


too limiting. An new clause 100, which was elegantly stated by the


member for Birmingham Yardley, I understand that I hope those


proposing will agree with me this has already been addressed by the


modern slavery Bill brought in by this Prime Minister, and the work


the government has done on domestic violence. We can be reassured this


will be Inc pleaded. I can assure the opposition there are enough


strong women on this side, led by a female Prime Minister, that the...


And your site too. That equality and women's rights are understood by the


side and I'm sure there will be cross-party collaboration on this,


as my right honourable friend said. We've also had many reassurances


from the Prime Minister already about the EU and UK nationals, so I


hope we will get a firm agreement shortly. The sooner we get on with


negotiations, the better for everyone. It could be a great


opportunity for this country. I won't be supporting any deal that


isn't better than the UK. That would be a dereliction of duty. However, I


have every confidence in the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State


the exiting the EU, that they will have taken into account the views of


the people like myself and the intentions of many of the members


put forward today. There would be a good deal which would be great for


us and our European friends and neighbours. Rosie Winterton. Thank


you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I want to add my


support to new clause new clause 163 and 193. My honourable friend the


Newcastle North made an excellent speech and put most of -- all of the


points forward, in terms of why the government should accept these


amendments. I just wanted to add that at the all-party group on


Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire yesterday, we had representatives


from the four, we had representatives from industry, the


creative industries and the universities. We agreed we would do


an analysis of what Brexit meant for Yorkshire and the Humber, and that


we would, on a cross-party basis, put that forward to ministers, so


that we could analyse not only what leaving the European Union would


mean, but also what we wanted to see from negotiations. As my honourable


friend said, the Secretary of State for Brexit talked about a meeting


with mayors in York. This is a very vague promise, and we really need to


put some meat on the bones. We heard yesterday that apparently they have


a ministerial champion, which is terrific news I'm sure. Apparently


it is the Minister for climate change and industry. If I could make


a suggestion to the Minister here today, I think he should ask the LEP


champion, the minister, to draw together the proposals from other


regions. I know there will be honourable and right honourable


members who will be very happy to go back to their regions and see if a


similar plan could be put forward for all of them, and then convene


the members of Parliament and representatives from the regions


together, so we would be on an equal footing with Scotland, Wales and


Northern Ireland, and London, and really have an input into the


process. I would urge the Minister to look


very carefully about proposal. And in terms of the amendment in the


name of my right honourable friend for Birmingham Hodge Hill, new


clause 193, Mr Gale, you are our leader for the UK delegation on the


Council of Europe. And I'm sure that members will be very well aware that


there have been different media reports about the Goverment's but


towards the European Convention on Human Rights. And that's why I hope


that the Minister will accept the amendment put before us today. Once


and for all dispel any about the Goverment's view on the European


Convention of human rights. The Prime Minister said, we need to be a


good neighbour to our other European countries. This would be a way of


illustrating that. We don't, we mustn't vacate the global platforms


like this, and we need to have a voice still within Europe. So I hope


the Minister will accept those amendments. Thank you, Sir Roger. I


too will try to be brief. Like many colleagues I voted to remain but I


was clear at the time that I would be bound by the result both within


the constituency and the country, and the results in the Wales


constituency was that we should leave, as it was in the country at


large, so that is what we must do. I am baffled by the number of


amendments to this Bill, not because those amendments like value all they


do not make good points in terms of our extraction from the EU, they


very obviously do. But because as the Shadow Secretary of State for


exiting the EU so rightly said that the second reading, there is primary


legislation to follow the progress of Article 50 within which both


Houses of Parliament will have a very important role in scrutinising


what we do in those negotiations. I certainly intend to play full part


in that screw Toonie, and I know that members on the other side of


the House will as well. -- in that scrutiny. We were discussing earlier


on the impact of free trade agreements, particularly on our


farmers. It stands to reason that when those free trade agreements


come forward, they will again be a matter for this House to scrutinise,


so that in the interests of farmers and fruit is about food producers


can be brought to bear to make sure that the deals or in there interest.


However, Sir Roger, I would like to associate myself with the comments


and so many colleagues about the right of EU nationals to remain


within the UK. In Somerset, particularly in our tourism,


farming, food and drink and manufacturing industries, people


from elsewhere in the EU play a hugely important part in our local


economy. It is inconceivable to me that they would ever have their


rights to be here taken away. I would like to make some points on


the clause within the Bill, my constituency neighbour is it


neighbour of Hinkley Point a and B, and we will soon be the neighbour of


Hinkley Point C as well. It is clear to me that the UK nuclear industry


has a world-class reputation for having the very highest regulatory


standards. Now, those clearly have been developed within the Euratom


framework. But we should be we're that the United States, Japan and


China also operate within that framework without being a member of


the European Union -- we should be clear. And I would fully expect that


we will do the same when we have left Euratom by virtue of us leaving


the European Union. And I think for those who have expressed any doubt


that the Government will seek to continue to maintained the very


highest in standards for safety within our nuclear industry are


perhaps not giving the Government the credit that they deserve.


Because we have always set those standards, we always will, whether


we are within the EU on Euratom or not. As for the willingness of other


members of Euratom, other nations within Euratom, to want to continue


to cooperate with us, I am certain that they will. The French


government is very heavily invested in immediate, and it is


inconceivable to me that they will not want their operations in the UK


to remain a part of a common regulatory framework across the


European continent -- the French government are very invested in EDF.


The Government has rightly committed to working with the industry and the


nuclear research bodies and the country to make sure that they fully


understand what the priorities of that sector is within the UK, so


that those needs can be met with whatever it is that we put in place


instead of Euratom once we have left. The UK's nuclear industry is


the gold standard globally. Many technologies being developed in


other countries want those technologies to be implied here, so


that they can have the tech to say that they have been approved for


operation within the UK. It is apparent to me therefore that as we


put in place regulatory standards in the future, we will want to maintain


that high standards with the great reputation around the world, and


crucially this House of Commons will have an important role in that. The


final point I'd like to make, Sir Roger, an energy policy generally is


to encourage the Government to clarify that they see a clear


distinction between the EU so in gold market and the EU is English


internal energy market -- the EU is in, could. It is my view on


decolonisation, it is in our interest, of course. The honourable


gentleman is making a very good point and the point that I would


have liked to have made have I been called. He is absolutely right. If


we leave the single energy market and we lose the interconnector is we


will need higher -based local capacity that will cost more and


electricity prices will shoot up, does he agree with me on that point?


I agree that the interconnection of the UK and the European mainland


from an energy perspective is hugely important. The point I'm making is


that is not a part of the EU is in, could. The EU's internal energy


market is a separate entity. What I'm inviting the government to do is


to clarify that they recognise that. And that their commitment to leaving


the EU Single Market, which I fully understand, is distinct from a


continued enthusiasm for the internal energy market, which is an


entirely separate thing and hugely to our benefit. So Roger, the will


of my constituents and our country is clear. We have been instructed to


leave. It's not what I voted for but it is what we will do now. And it


starts with this binary decision, whether or not to trigger Article


50. This bill, without amendment, does exactly that. As we go forward,


the role of this House and our responsibility to our constituents


is clear, that we must engage fully in scrutinising all of the


legislation that comes forward as a result of these negotiations. So


those that have suggested that are not amend the bill right now is


somehow an abdication of our responsibility to our constituents,


I think are just wrong. Our responsibility as a House is to be


bound by the results of the referendum, to trigger to go 50 and


bring all of our expertise together is good and icing the legislation


that follows, as we do one or legislation going forward.


Reimbursement. Thank you very much, so Roger, it is a pleasure. I want


to speak about clause 193 which is down and mining. I have tabled this


amendment, and I hope that the Minister will be able to take it on


board, because I want to give the Government a chance to set up this


afternoon its pro-European credentials. We have heard very


eloquently as my right honourable friend is a member of the Bronkhorst


Central said, the Prime Minister has said that yes, we may believe in


European Union, but we intend to be good European neighbours. -- we may


be leaving. New clause 193 is an opportunity for the Government to


set out how we in this country are going to remain determined to stay


as a member of one of the most important European clubs at the


European club which we helped found. It is the Council of Europe, the


European Commission on human rights, and the European Court of Human


Rights. Now, we have moved this because one of the most significant


consequences of this divorce from Europe is that we are going to leave


the European Court of Justice. And indeed it was an important part of


the Leave campaign's argument, that we must escape from the tutelage of


these terrible European judges. Only British judges are good enough for


us! That is unless of course they happen to want to give this


Parliament a chance to debate this very bill. In that case, the


instantly become enemies of the people! This idea, in a moment, this


idea that foreign judges is of course a complete fiction. Indeed,


this very often you, Sir Roger, the Government has solicited our support


for the seater agreement, with the new investor state dispute. A new


court, populated by, I would argue, not with British judges but with


foreign judges. So in fact, this idea that foreign judges are about


to be removed and extracted from the body politic in this country is of


course a nonsense. And that is why I think we must argue that one of the


most important tribunal roles which exist in this country should remain


in place, because that law, that court is the European Court of Human


Rights. I give way. I'm grateful to the honourable member for giving way


on this furry point. -- this very point. With our European partners


and also with our common European Heritage stemming out of Judaea


Christian theology through the light and Matt through the schools of


Paris into the concept of rights that have emerged. -- the unlike


demand. They were not simply created by the European Council as he


claimed, but were created by British judges over several hundred years,


admittedly taken from French and then reimposed into Europe in the


aftermath of the Second World War. However, although he claims rightly


that that heritage is important, wouldn't it be appropriate to


recognise that some of those judges today on Moldovan and Russian and


have been rather more broke to looking the dictatorial abuse than


they have been to guaranteeing rights. There is a reason that


Russia has had its credentials suspended from the Council of


Europe, and that is because they are not prepared to honour that great


European Magna Carta that British civil servants helped draw up under


Churchill's inspiration in the years after the Second World War. I will


in a moment. The Conservative manifesto, well, I want to put this


question specifically to the Minister, the Conservative manifesto


is not very well read on that side of the House. We study it forensic


league, and in detail. And of course -- forensically. In 2010, the


Conservative... Members will be interested, in 2010, the


Conservative member said, we are going to introduce a British Bill of


Rights and replaced the Human Rights Act, and we are going to make sure


that European Court of Human Rights is no longer binding over the UK


Supreme Court. We're going to make sure that the European Court of


Human Rights is no longer able to change British laws. That position


was repeated in the 2015 manifesto. And so I hope the Minister can say


that that plan is now in the bin. I'm grateful to right honourable


friend for giving way. I have resisted intervening throughout the


course of this debate, but I think that I can help him to this extent.


I don't know whether he was present at the wind-up of the second reading


of this bill, but I actually inform the House that the Government has no


plans to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. The


Minister is good to put that on the record, but the fact is... The fact


is, there are plans, there were plans that up on the 2010


Conservative manifesto, there were plans set out in the 2015 manifesto,


in the draft of the British Bill of Rights that is circulating in the


Department for justice, there similar plans, which is why in


August 2016, in a moment, in August 2016, Justice Secretary said to the


House, there would by a British Bill of Rights brought forward. The House


wants to know categorically whether that British Bill of Rights will


have the implication and the result of taking us out of the European


Court of Human Rights. That is the point that I want the Minister to


put beyond doubt by accepting into the build new clause 193 this


afternoon. Of course. Can I give him some reassurance on two points.


First of all, having served as Minister for human rights, it was


never in the Conservative plans on the Bill of Rights to pull out of


the European dimension, I made that clear on a monthly basis at justice


questions. Precisely because the Council of Europe is entirely


independent from the EU, this is an entirely meaningless amendment. It


is absolutely not. It is essential. If the Prime Minister is to be good


to her word that we are going to remain committed to the club of


Europe, which we helped create. But my point I suppose for the House


this afternoon... Of course I will give way. I'm sure I have heard the


Prime Minister say publicly, I think, during her leadership


campaign, that she was abandoning plans to leave the European


dimension of human rights because she accepted she could not win a


parliamentary majority. True proposal. I'm grateful to the right


honourable gentleman for that. I would like to is the Minister -- I


would like to ask the Minister to take into the build new clause 193,


which would give us a degree of assurance. He is prepared to vote


against his own whip in order to seek reassurances which are


cast-iron, I seek the same level of reassurance this afternoon.


It was back in September 1946 that Winston Churchill went to see Rick


and first proposed the Council of Europe, as a first step to


recreating the European family whose breakdown led to the tragedy of the


Second World War LEPs in the face of rising threats I think those old


words are still wise words to guide us. It's a great pleasure to speak


in this committee of the whole house, regarding the European Union


notification withdrawal bill. And indeed, I fully support the


government as it enacts the will of the people, shown in the European


Union referendum. And welcome the white paper. On the face of it, some


of the clauses before us, I agree with. They look benign and fairly


honourable. In fact, the problem for me about this being the withdrawal


bill is that it is illogical in the middle of the withdrawal bill to


start to try and model be negotiations into the middle of it.


Therefore, a particular Christmas tree bill. I want to speak briefly


about some of my concerns that the constituents have brought to me and


about my own view on new clause two. I won't be supporting the proposed


new clause, as it does seem agreeable and benign but it doesn't


mention the particular area of migration. Today the Prime Minister


spoke about the need for highly skilled workers to come to the UK


still from the EU. And about the priority that this will have as we


go through our negotiations. This clause fails to deal with this. Any


person who has been part of a negotiation particularly affecting


the private sector as well will only be too aware about being tied with


our hands behind our backs as we go into this process, and revealing


your complete strategy at the start seems absurd. This clause I think is


simply to fudge the issue is, by suggesting that we care more about


the principles than the government. However it's quite clear that the


Prime Minister has laid out guiding principles in the Lancaster house


speech, and the feedback from constituents on both sides of the


referendum in Eastleigh to me have been appreciated in the Lancaster


house speech, and also welcome these principles. Many people just asking


us politicians to simply get on with it. I welcome all the contributions


from speakers across the chamber over the last few days. I found it


fascinating and important to be part of it. Inevitably, the fine details


of the will of the people will be part of the key negotiations that


happen in the coming months and years. Local businesses have made


points to speak to me about the need to move forward, but they are having


to make key decisions about their staffing and arrangements, and wish


politicians to do the same. One of the issues I found most surprising


in this Committee Stage is the attempt by some to suggest that


various Leave Campaign proposals were a direct manifesto to which the


government might be following to the letter. This government is seeking


in my belief, to enact the will of the people, and negotiate a strong


and appropriate deal. We are in a post-referendum phase but being in


this Committee Stage of the last few weeks, even though it's been a


matter of days, is something it seems that the Democrats appeared to


be gleefully unaware of. It is likely to be the most complex


negotiations this country ever enters into, and the effects will be


far ranging. We've heard about the free trade matters, about the free


trade treaties. And they have been referred to greatly, with separate


sectors needing separate discussions and separate focus points. I think


it's absolutely right they should be separated from the bill in front of


us. Anything but the smartest approach to this would be letting


down our constituents. I won't be supporting these weak attempts to


dilate this. Instead, I will be putting my trust in to the Prime


Minister, and the work she will do in the national interest. As I said


earlier in the debate, I found it objectionable in terms of new clause


100, that the Prime Minister and this side would somehow put


winning's rights to the back through this bill. But our Prime Minister


who's done so much in her role as the Home Secretary committed to


working on issues in terms of FGM, treatment of coercive control and


fighting the gender pay gap. It is absolutely right wet areas such as


women trafficking, but the government and the Prime Minister is


somehow going to roll over and somehow these issues will not be a


highlight of what we seek to achieve in leaving the EU. Many of my


constituents have rightly asked me about the rights of EU citizens who


are working in this country. I totally agree with the Right


honourable member from Don Valley about the tone of this debate. It's


frightening and nerve wracking to constituents, and we are keen to


protect all our constituents. No one in this chamber is in any doubt of


the huge contribution to our economy, to our society, our


culture, our tourism industry, our national life, that EU citizens


make. But in planning the free movement, homes, doctors, NHS,


pressures on our services have been difficult to manage. It's been


reminded to me at the recent LEP conference that EU students also


make a contribution to our area. I would expect this House to also have


the same view that the contribution of our own citizens make in other EU


countries. So indeed, we need to make sure this is a balanced


approach. In my constituency, all members of this House do great work


in our surgeries in casework. Very often are international or EU or


immigration or homeless issues, complicated and difficult. I don't


understand why there is a feeling that we on this side of the House


are somehow going to forget the work we do for people who may be married


into Continental, perhaps have home issues we need to resolve, where


I've helped us to get passports the members of families to go to


funerals, issues they've needed to have help with, because ultimately,


they have complicated and difficult lights, too. I believe we all


understand we need to have a mutual recognition of the work EU citizens


do both abroad and here, and that members of Parliament do to help


resolve the issues which affect all our communities. I don't believe


that through this bill, somehow that is going to change and we are going


to forget what we have to do for our constituents. The Prime Minister


today has been clear about her intention and priority first stage


to look after all, citizens, both at home and abroad. I fully support her


in the work she does, and believe that we eventually will get a deal


which is right with the UK, which is open and strong and trickster the


future. I will support this bill and I go back to my previous point, it's


a notification of withdrawing, it not about negotiations. Thank you


Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to speak to new clause 192 which


I've added my name to. Another bar of honourable members have spoken


with great knowledge about the nuclear industry today. As chair of


the APPG on nuclear energy like them to come and join us and come to our


meetings and share their knowledge! The nuclear industry is absolutely


critical to my constituency in West Cumbria. Because of that, I have


probably had an unusual inbox compare to most honourable members,


in that I've had a large number of direct e-mails from concerned


constituents about the proposed withdrawal from the Euratom Treaty.


They are particularly concerned because of the significant negative


impact this can have on the nuclear industry in the UK. They believe it


unnecessary, ill considered and are concerned it will create great


disruption in the nuclear industry, at a time when we need to be


pressing forward with our nuclear new-build programme. Euratom has had


a significant role in establishing its members credibility and


acceptability in the wider global new click in unity. A constituent


contacted me to say he believes exit will have a significant impact on


the cost and duration of decommissioning, which is clearly


very important in West Cumbria, they also believe that the nuclear


new-build programme at Moorside will be impacted. We know that EDF energy


has said that ideally they believe the UK should stay in the treaty, as


it provides a framework for complying with international


standards for handling nuclear materials. On this issue of safety


and materials, another constituent who works for many, many years as a


radiation protection adviser, has been in touch to share his concerns.


He has wide experience of applying regulatory controls in workplaces.


This has included hospitals, the oil and gas industry, paper and plastics


manufacturing, radiography and the nuclear industry as well. He says


every one of these is considerably safer today as a result of Euratom.


This isn't just about direct nuclear industry. He goes onto say that he


believes is extremely short-sighted to remove the wealth of information


and expertise that has resulted from our membership of Euratom. She and I


share a real enthusiasm for the nuclear industry. Specifically how


will our withdrawal from Euratom lead to a diminishment of our


expertise in how to regulate the nuclear industry? I'm talking about


what constituents who actually work in the industry are telling me. To


be honest I would trust the judgment of my own constituents. I mentioned


earlier a constituent who worked at the National nuclear laboratory when


I made a brief intervention. He says that leaving will impair his ability


to collaborate with leading scientists and engineers across


Europe, to the detriment of science and technology in this country. This


is what my constituents are telling me. You can choose to disbelieve


them, I do not, I trust my constituents. I promised I would be


brief, so I will wind up. I do not understand when we have conflicting


legal opinion on why we have to leave, why the government is


insisting that we have two. We need to make sure that a rapid exit


doesn't do serious harm to our nuclear industry. We have so much to


lose, I believe, with so little to gain. I would ask members to support


new clause 190 two. -- 192. I will talk if I may new cause 11 which is


entitled tariff free trade in new goods and services. There are no


tariffs on services worldwide so that should be fairly easy to


achieve. I take it that it means tariff free trade in goods and the


minimum of barriers to services. There are only two realistic


outcomes to the negotiations we will have as far as trade is concerned.


The first is that we negotiate a free trade agreement, continuing


tariff free trade more or less what we've got at present. And the second


is that we move to trading on the basis of most-favoured-nation


tariffs, under WTO rules which is basically what America, China, Japan


and Russia, the four most successful countries at exporting to the EU, do


at present. From what I've heard in this House, and what I know of the


government's position, everybody would like us to negotiate


continuing tariff free trade with our European partners. That's what


everybody wants. We don't particularly need any clause in this


Bill, just to try and achieve that. Moreover, it's very simple to


negotiate. To go from zero tariffs to zero tariffs is very easy. It can


be done in an afternoon. It's not Mike negotiating the removal of


tariffs, as the EU had to do with Canada. Tariff free trade is very


simple to negotiate as far as barriers and services are concerned,


all we'd have to negotiate is the normal dispute resolution procedure,


if our regulatory systems began to diverged on assessing whether that


was a matter that was serious or not. Because we start with identical


regulatory arrangements, or will do after the Great Repeal Bill. Tariff


free trade is also in the interest of the European Union. We are the


biggest single market for the rest of the European Union, bigger than


the United States, with whom they've laboriously been trying to negotiate


the removal of tariffs over some years.


They also have a big surplus in trade with us, and it should not


therefore be difficult... They already have free trade agreements


with some 50 other countries which don't involve free movement of


labour or paying a contribution, or continuing to accept the European


legislation. Although it is in their economic


interests to continue with tariff-free trade with us, they may


feel it necessary to punish us, to deter other countries from following


our example, and to deter their voters from voting for Eurosceptic


parties. Few people seem willing to recognise that this will be their


choice. They will either decide to go along with continuing free-trade,


or they will say, for political reasons, we can't accept that, we


must trade on most-favoured-nation terms in future. We can't go back to


them and say, sorry, you didn't give it to us first time, give it to us


the second time. If they do not give it to us the first time, they won't.


Look at what we need to recognise is that although trading on


most-favoured-nation terms is not as good as continuing free-trade, it is


the second best. It's second-best, and it's better then continuing on


the arrangement we had in the past. First of all, most favoured nation


tariffs, as they will apply to us, if we are subject to the common


external tariff that Europe applies, if they apply it to us, would


average 4%. Net contribution we make to the European Union annually is


equivalent to 7% of the value of our exports. So we currently paying 7%


to avoid a charge of 4%. The 7% is after taking account of everything


we get back. If the honourable gentleman wants to know, look up


page 159, chart 4.27 from the office of budget responsibility, which


charts how much we will get back net if we leave. One possibility, is it


not, if there is a 4% tariff imposed, that the pound might just


to appreciate by the same amount because we have our own currency?


It's already 15% more competitive than it was a year ago, which rather


dwarfs an average 4%. We can of course give processing relief on


components coming as part of processing chains and manufacturing


chains which are going to be re-exported. We will get ?12.3


billion of revenues if we apply the common external tariff to imports


from the EU. Our exporters will pay some ?6.5 billion of tariffs on


their exports to the EU. So we would have ample money to compensate any


exporters who were not sufficiently benefited by a 15% devaluation, and


still have billions of pounds to reduce general taxation. And of


course we can negotiate free-trade agreements with the rest of the


world, and we can slash unilaterally the tariffs that we currently charge


on products, food and clothing and other things, which we do not


produce, but which mean that our consumers have to pay higher prices


to subsidise inefficient users elsewhere in the EU, instead of


importing, say, from less developed countries, who we should naturally


be importing from. There are many other advantages, but as you have


urged brevity, Madame chairman, I will not tell the House what they


are and hold them up for a future occasion. Always interesting to


follow the right honourable gentleman. I wanted to briefly


considering my remarks also on Euratom. It's principal goal is the


promotion of research and the dissemination of information, the


establishment of safety standards, facilitating investment and also,


the agency which covers the supply of nuclear fuel is. It also


establishes a nuclear Common Market. The Eurosceptics always used to say,


we wanted to be in the Common Market, and yet their decision will


be to pull out of the nuclear Common Market. The Government I do believe


wants to retain the principles and goals stated in the publication of


the bill, and that leaving Euratom is because of legal, binding


arrangements. Well, this is debatable. I have seen a number of


conflicting legal advice on this. I think that the cynic in me would


suggest, this is more to do with the European Court of Justice and issues


surrounding that. The Government says it supports Euratom and wants


to see continued co-operation and to have the highest standards. The


member for Wells is absolutely right, we are world leaders when we


come to nuclear standards says all we do it in copper operation with


other countries, and that's why this umbrella body Euratom is so


important, and we must keep it. I am speaking to the amendment, and also


to New Clause 192, which is supported by the industry, and by


the industry bodies. The importance of it is that we do continue the


co-operation and that we do have greater certainty going forward. I


have raised this matter with the Secretary of State for days, and he


was very courteous with me and said he had met with the industry and


that he was sure that we would be able to continue outside Euratom. ,


but a that I'm afraid is not what the industry feels in general. To


the honourable gentleman mentioned the energy research programme in


Oxfordshire, and said the management did not want this amendment. The


workforce have lobbied me in great numbers, through the union, and said


that there were risks if we were to pull out. The access of information


and data sharing again is important and puts us way behind if we pull


out. Companies need to plan in advance in this industry, and they


need to have that certainty. Again, there is an area with nuclear


co-operation with the United States, regarding Euratom. It is ironic that


we talk about coming out of Europe and trading with the United States,


yet we need to be part of Euratom to get those agreements to move fuels


to the United States, to Japan, Canada and other countries and to


renegotiate will take an awful long time. So, I would like to see the


minister ensure that the UK should ideally maintain its membership of


Euratom, even if we leave the European Union. If the Government


proceeds to give notice to withdraw, then we must have agreement on


censorship or arrangements, with sufficient time to negotiate and


complete new arrangements with EU states and with third countries,


such as the United States, Japan, Canada and others. If in two years,


an agreement cannot be reached, in the UK should remain a member. Our


standing in the nuclear in is at stake, jobs are at stake and the


reputation of us as a major country in nuclear research is at stake. I


hope the minister takes that on board. Thank you. I've listened to a


large number of very important contributions this afternoon from


honourable and right honourable members. There are a large number of


amendments that are being considered this afternoon. I would hope that


the House would therefore forgiveness if I say now that I


would prefer... -- forgive me if I say now... Doesn't he think it's


totally farcical that, with 35 amendments that I've tabled today, I


have not been enabled able to even move or speak to any of them? Does


this not leave Parliament unable to scrutinise the EU withdrawal? If I


can commend the honourable gentleman on his enthusiasm, and at the same


time, say that the House has voted for a programme motion, and we have


adopted the programme motion. I think the minister. I think the


public watch and watching need to know that there are many amendments


and closes tonight that people support, and this is not the right


place for those amendments and causes to be debated. As the right


honourable member for Edgbaston said, this is not the right bill.


That's what I am about to say. And I would like to address all the


amendments, if I possibly can. I hope the House will forgive me if I


do not take interventions. The amendments debated today serve as a


valuable reminder of the numerous important matters which will need to


be considered and discussed throughout the process of


negotiation. They seek to ensure the specific aspects of our future


relationship with the European Union, and that these are


prioritised by the Government. Let me take this opportunity once again


to tell the House that we are committed to delivering the best


possible deal for the whole of the United Kingdom. However, we can only


set about the process of delivering that deal after we have triggered


Article 50. . It is therefore not appropriate to seek to tie the hands


of the Government in individual policy areas at this stage. Doing so


can only serve to jeopardise our negotiating position. Given the very


broad scope of the very many many amendments debated today, I will see


to do my best to deal with them. However, there is a common response


to all of them. This, and mentally, is a straightforward procedural bill


which serves only to give the Prime Minister the power to trigger


Article 50, and thereby respect the result of the referendum. As a


consequence, these amendments are not for this bill. Instead they are


for the many future debates that will take place in this House and


the Other Place... Point of order. Madame Deputy Speaker, the minister


said that these amendments were not for this bill. Could you just remind


the House that the Chair ruled that all of these amendments are within


the scope of this bill? Order, this has been mentioned again and again.


It is a matter for debate. David Jones. Thank you. These will fall to


be debated at a later stage, and they will be debated at a later


stage. New clauses... As well as amendments... Each require the Prime


Minister either to have regard to, or to set out in a report, a number


of matters prior to triggering Article 50. These include, but are


not limited to the Common travel area with the Republic of Ireland


and the preservation of peace in Northern Ireland, tariff-free trade


with the European Union, workers, women's, human, civil, social and


political rights, climate change and environmental standards, the British


economy and economic model. The white paper published last week sets


out our strategic aims for the negotiations and covers many of the


topics that honourable members have addressed in these and other


amendments. With regard to the Common travel area, for instance,


we've already stressed that we are committed to working with both the


Irish government and the Northern Ireland executive to recognise the


unique economic, social and political context of the land border


between the United Kingdom and Ireland. We've also made it clear


that we are seeking a bold and comprehensive free trade agreement


with the European Union that is as tariff-free and fiction less as


possible. On New Clause seven, specifically, concerning the


preservation of EU tax avoidance measures, the Prime Minister has


made it very clear that we will convert it into British law, and it


will then be for the British Parliament to decide on any changes


to the law with appropriate scrutiny. Similarly, amendment seven


and new clauses... Seek to require the Government to commit to a


position on specific issues before triggering Article 50. Amendments


seven, for example, seeks to ensure that the UK continues to participate


in the EU Common, Foreign And Security Policy after withdrawal


from the EU. Matters such as this cannot be resolved through


unilateral action. Instead they must clearly be addressed through


discussion with 20 other member states of the EU. We've been very


clear that we want to see continued close co-operation on foreign and


security policy with European partners, but these discussions can


only begin after Article 50 has been triggered. New clause 16 is designed


to ensure that the implement rights of those living or working in the UK


shall be unaffected by this bill. The Government has made it clear


that not only will there be no change to employment protection as a


result of triggering Article 50, indeed, we've already said that we


will protect and enhance the rights that people have at work. A further


distinct set of amendments seek to clarify the position of Gibraltar.


This was addressed most notably by the honourable member for Guildford


South. The government is clear that


Gibraltar is covered by our proposed exit negotiations. We've committed


to fully involve Gibraltar, as we prepare for the process of exiting


the EU. We must seek a deal that works for Britain, and that deal


must work the Gibraltar, too. A number of amendments tabled by


honourable members raised issues relating to the negotiations


themselves. New clauses 11, 12, 21, 76, 77, 104 and 181 each relate to


future trading relationship with the EU, and some seek about the specific


areas of the UK economy such as financial services and the


agricultural sector. Again, the government's position is clear, the


Prime Minister has said the UK will seek to strike a unique agreement


with the European Union back gets the right deal for people at home,


and the best deal for Britain abroad. In response to new clause


13, the Prime Minister has said we expect a phased process of


implementation in which both the UK and EU prepared that any new


arrangements. This will not, however, be some form of unlimited


transitional status. This would be an helpful both with the UK and the


EU. New clauses 15, 166 and 183 also address the UK's negotiating


objectives, but focus on the right to free movement and matters


concerning immigration. The precise nature of the deal will be a matter


for negotiation but let me reassure the committee that we are seeking a


deal that will work for everyone in the UK. Another set of amendments


seeks to ensure the UK retains its membership of specific EU agencies.


I will, first of all, address the issue of Euratom since a number of


honourable members have made explicit reference to it. In new


clauses 185, 186 and 192, as well as an amendments 31, 42, and 89 to


clause one. I'd like to have the opportunity of explaining why, as we


trigger Article 50, we will also have to commence the process of


leaving Euratom. Although Euratom is a separate treaty -based


organisation, it shares a common institutional framework with the EU,


making both the EU and Euratom uniquely legally joined. The


government view is that it isn't possible for the UK to leave the EU,


and continue its current membership of Euratom. When Article 50 is


triggered the UK will be leaving Euratom as well as the EU. The


government's aim that this relationship is clear, to maintain


the mutually successful civil nuclear cooperation with EU nations.


Our exact relationship with Euratom will be subject to negotiation. The


negotiations haven't yet started and cannot start until we've triggered


Article 50, but we will continue to engage closely with MPs, industry


and stakeholders. New clauses 78-97 as well as amendments to clause 130


and 32-34, referred to other specific agencies, bodies and


schemes. While we recognise the importance of these and stress we do


want to have close cooperation with our European partners, in all these


areas, this Bill isn't the place, and is a matter for the negotiations


themselves. Our intention, as set out in the white paper, is to leave


the EU. It would be wrong to start negotiating our new relationship


with our membership of one or other European body already predetermined,


and it would also be wrong to set a unilateral demands before


negotiations have begun. We recognise the importance of all


these agencies, bodies and schemes, but the nature of our membership in


them will be a matter for negotiation with the EU. Further


amendments seek to specify the timing of triggering Article 50, and


there are a large number of reasons why the end of March deadline is


extremely important. We need to progress now, having done a great


deal of analysis and preparation, the time is right to get on and to


serve the Article 50 notice. The issue of EU nationals was once again


raised this afternoon. It has been debated also earlier this week. I


want to once again state to the House that the government fully


recognises that the issue of EU nationals resident in the UK is an


extremely important one, and one which we wish to address as a matter


of priority, just as we wish to address the issue of the rights of


UK nationals resident in the... Know I won't. This, however, has got to


be a matter that is addressed after the negotiations commence. Miss


Engels, I'm grateful for the contributions of the members of the


committee during this debate. This Bill respects the judgment of the


Supreme Court, and I urge right honourable members to support


clauses one and two is introduced. Clause one provides Parliament's


authority of the Prime Minister to notify the European Council of the


UK's intention to withdraw from the EU. It also makes it clear that this


power applies notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, this


is to address the Supreme Court's conclusions as to the status of the


act. I urge all honourable and right honourable members who have tabled


amendments now to withdraw them, so we can progress the bill, start the


process of withdrawal, and work to deliver a deal that respects the


vote of the British people in the referendum. In the few seconds that


left me, let me say we will not be withdrawing our amendments, and we


will be holding the government to account for the Secretary of State's


commitment to achieve the exact same benefits in the deal that we have


through our current membership of the single market. One of the issues


that has caused concern on both sides of the House, has been our


membership of Euratom. In his closing remarks, the Minister has


failed to give the assurances to satisfy those concerns, and for the


sake of doubt which the honourable member for Wells expressed, the


nuclear industry Association has made it clear we shouldn't leave


Euratom. It isn't in the interests of industry or jobs. They will be


looking at how this House votes on new clause 192 and they will judge


the government accordingly. I hope members will recognise that, will


vote for that new clause and for all the other amendments we have tabled.


The question is that new clause two be read a second time. As many as


are of the opinion, say aye. To the contrary, no. Division, clear the


lobby. The question is that new clause to


be read a second time. As many as are of the opinion, say aye. To the


contrary, no. The ayes to the right, the noes to


the left. The ayes to the right, 291, the noes to the left, 336. So,


the noes have it. Unlock. We now come to new clause seven. The


question is that... The question is that new clause seven be added to


the bill. As many are of that opinion, say aye. On the contrary,


say no. Division, clear the lobby. Order, order. The ayes to the right,


289. The noes to the left, 336. The ayes to the right word 289, the noes


to the left, 336. The noes have it, the noes have it. An lock. We come


to amendment 20 nine. The question is that the amendment 29 B made. As


many as are of the opinion, say aye. To the contrary, no. Division, clear


the lobby. The question is that amendment 29 be


made. As many as are of the opinion, say aye. To the contrary, no.


Order, order. The ayes to the right, the noes to the left, 338. Ayes to


the right, the noes have it. Unlock. We come now to amendment 11. The


question is that amendment 11 you made. As many as all of that


opinion, save aye. On the contrary, no. Division, clear the lobby.


The question is that amendment 11 be made. Tell us for the ayes Amat tell


us for the noes... Order, order. The ayes to the right,


288. The noes to the left, 337 from. So, the noes have it. Unlock. We


come now to amendment 40 three. The question is that amendment 43 be


added to the bill. Division, clear the lobby!


The question is that amendment 43 be made. As many as are of the opinion,


say aye. To the contrary, no. Order, order! The ayes to the right,


33. The noes to the left, 340. The ayes to the right, 33. The noes to


the left, 340. The noes have it, the noes have it. Unlock! We now come to


amendment Amendment 86 to be moved formerly. The question is that 86 be


made. As many as are of the opinion, say aye. To the contrary, no. Clear


the lobbies! Can Secretary of State sit down?


Come on, keep running! LAUGHTER Great man. Right. The question is


that Amendment 86 be made. As many as are of the opinion, say aye. To


the contrary, no. Order. Can the assistant sergeant at


arms look into the lobby, there seems to be a slight blockage that


she might be able to relieve? Order. The ayes to the right, 288.


The noes to the left, 387. The ayes to the right, 288, tellers for the


noes, 327. The noes have it. Unlock. Under the terms of the programming


standing orders, I must at the question on clause one and clause to


together. The question is that the clauses stand part of the bill. As


many of that opinion say aye. The contrary, no?


I have definitely heard the ayes. Can I hear the noes? Division, clear


the lobby. Order, order. The question is that


clause one and two stand part of the Bill. Order, order. The question is


that they stand part one and two of the Bill. As many as are of the


opinion, say aye. To the contrary, no.


With the Sergeant of arms investigate the eye and no lobby. If


you take one each it'll be helpful. Thank you. -- the ay and no lobby.